Almost all conclusions are drawn from a certain set of assumptions. For example, the Affordable Care Act is in place, but costs are still rising. Some people t

Almost all conclusions are drawn from a certain set of assumptions. For example, the Affordable Care Act is in place, but costs are still rising. Some people think that this is because it's not "enough socialism". Others think it's because of "too much socialism". You could list facts, but people are not looking for raw data, they're looking for analysis. How do you analyze this "objectively"? Even if the content is objective in the sense of reality, many people will say it's not objective. And public opinion of "objective" sources are usually those that play to the both sides fallacy. Going back to GGP's thing, people read what they want to read. What if you just happen to be right? Like, what if the "liberal echo bubble" is "actually" the truth? does this problem go away? I think objectivity is hard to maintain, but objectivity + belief of objectivity in the public eye is probably impossible.