It's completely reasonable to objectively cover anything. There will always be bias in what is covered, but there need not be in how it is covered. The media of

It's completely reasonable to objectively cover anything. There will always be bias in what is covered, but there need not be in how it is covered. The media of the past used to excel at this. This [1] is the New York Times coverage of Watergate in 1972 just before the election. It's extremely well sourced, makes relatively minimal use of anonymous sources, and gives all facts and data without labeling, judgement, or anything of the sort. I have no way of even telling the political proclivities of the writer. Compare that to modern media, including what the NYT has turned into, and it's simply sad. I think a big part of what has changed is that that the traditional media is now competing with social media. Instead of relying on newspaper subscriptions, they rely on digital advertising. And so they desperately need clicks. What gets more clicks, a calm and collected coverage entitled "The Watergate Mystery" or a hyperbolic piece full of sensationalism, characterizations, and drama entitled "Nixon implicated in criminal enterprise and secret surveillance." In this case it turns out that Nixon was indeed guilty, so the hyperbole might not seem so unreasonable. Instead of that take things such as the New York Times coverage of the rape allegations targeting the Duke lacrosse team. [2][3][4]. Read those articles, the headlines, and the implications. The second article ([3]) implies it was inappropriate for the players to even be continuing to practice as if nothing had happened - though in fact, nothing had. The ending of that story is sordid, but the gist is that the entire event was found to be completely and literally fake. Not as in a 'it happened, but not like that' but literally - it did not happen, at all. The NYT assumed their guilt and wrote accordingly - because their goal has changed from informing a captive audience to competing for the clicks of an audience with no attention span, marginal quality requirements, and an insatiable lust for drama. I absolutely hope the recent attempts by the NYT to paywall their content are a resounding success. The point I'm getting at is that 'clean journalism' is obviously entirely possible, but it's much more difficult to monetize. Digital ads are easy. Put some ads, get some clicks, profit. But this system also forces people to compete at the lowest common denominator. And even not for profit organizations with government funding still need to earn money to stay afloat. For instance even NPR has turned towards more clickbaity typical articles. However, that turn happened only after multiple rounds of downsizing. Competition can bring out the best in many industries, but it can also bring out the worst in others. [1] - http://www.nytimes.com/1972/11/01/archives/the-watergate-mystery-the-watergate-mystery-after-19-weeks-of.html http://www.nytimes.com/1972/11/01/archives/the-watergate-mys... [2] - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/sports/rape-allegation-against-athletes-is-roiling-duke.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/sports/rape-allegation-aga... [3] - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/30/sports/duke-players-practice-while-scrutiny-builds.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/30/sports/duke-players-practi... [4] - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/sports/sportsspecial1/2-duke-lacrosse-players-indicted-in-rape-case.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/sports/sportsspecial1/2-du...