I will put this opinion here, as my political affiliation can best be described as "Mean Tweets Nostalgia." For two decades, the complaint from "the right" has

I will put this opinion here, as my political affiliation can best be described as "Mean Tweets Nostalgia." For two decades, the complaint from "the right" has not been media bias, but media agenda. This terminology has been widespread in circles that most here would never have considered, and I believe it is telling this distinction is not made in the article. There is a distinct difference between even editorializing vs reporting and that of media control of "narrative," a term anyone who has a liberal arts degree knows is something distinct from the idyllic "just the facts" view of journalism. Post-Woodward & Bernstein and the mythos surrounding that event, the journalistic class took it upon themselves to be agents of social change. This idea that neutrality shouldn't be approached, and that journalism as a class were supposed to be agents of change, created the forcing function for the rise of Fox News in the first place. And that's where we are now: a world where Dan Rather can make Times New Roman printed pages and act like it was historical documents, Journolist can induce "epistemic closure" amongst hundreds of journalists, and where an entire social class can feel empowered to shut down speech of which they are critical. (The publication that broke the Journolist scandal was founded by someone who is now quite famous, and it mirrors the reaction indicated in the article.) Narrative, a euphemism for agenda, is the core distinction driving this conflict. It is also deeply imbued in the soft postmodernist philosophy encountered by the (well-off) journalist and tech class now in power. Until narrative goes, the brief period of respect for facts will not recover, and we'll have the norm that has been American press for most time: yellow journalism.