> but to many the distinction between right and wrong now seems obvious. A new generation of journalists is questioning whether, in a hyper-partisan, digital wo

> but to many the distinction between right and wrong now seems obvious. A new generation of journalists is questioning whether, in a hyper-partisan, digital world, objectivity is even desirable. They are part of the polarization because they profit from it and I think they are entertainers instead of journalists. They know how to channel the hysteria and lust to condemn. Maybe not by experience, but their metrics certainly would show it. Some moderately serious youtube channels are more in line with facts and many online articles became profoundly lacking. Granted, it was the users that clicked them. And certain topics were clicked by all political factions. Racism and sexism are popular topics here. Having an opinion doesn't need any qualification, so those topics can reach anyone. Engagement shows these articles are much more popular than boring politics. Of course the more left or libertarian inclined journalists deliver the better content than their conservative contemporaries with few exceptions. But I think it is the older generation that created that image. > American view-from-nowhere, ‘objectivity’-obsessed, both-sides journalism is a failed experiment,” tweeted Wesley Lowery, a Pulitzer-winning 30-year-old now at CBS News This price is probably given by click rate. So the most outrageous claim wins. Again, I can name bloggers that could compete... no, that are vastly more poignant to the matter at hand. Seriously, read the articles, they aren't really good, but judge yourself. > unconscious bias gas-lighting, original sin or completely useless information. It is like discussing free will where the quality of the wine is important, not the result. I think to have bias is completely fine, but I can still separate my perception of facts from my opinion. That isn't actually too hard. Won't ever be perfect, but beating online journalism isn't hard. > One is Donald Trump’s rise and the challenges it has posed to traditional reporting. I think the press is vastly responsible here too. It may actually be a good idea to vote a president the "4th estate" is critical of. An angle I would think is beyond Pulitzer price winners of today. > Objectivity has been “turned into a cartoon”, he said. Better to aim for values such as fairness, independence and empathy. Sure, here bias wouldn't matter... A few journalists still try at least. They often don't have large twitter followings but you are always shown a new perspective if you read their editorials, which indeed do give context to their articles. The perspective of the conventional journalist is utterly mundane in contrast. > Amid more diverse recruitment More racist recruitment is the objective description. Because race matters here. For most people it doesn't. > The final reason for the turn against objectivity is commercial Back to the start. Why did some journalists condemn Fox News for being a scam? Ah yes, none of you are in a position to do so anymore...