I don't think it's the fact that money comes in from ads per se--it's the simple fact that news corps are businesses too and that they need money to survive, so

I don't think it's the fact that money comes in from ads per se--it's the simple fact that news corps are businesses too and that they need money to survive, so they need to serve the interests of whomever the money is coming from. If people wanted news to be as objective as news could be, then they better be prepared to apportion their taxes to news orgs (should news orgs be privately or publicly owned is a longer discussion but the latter is implied), to read news that are as boring and as declarative as an encyclopedia article, or to avoid news altogether and to be physically present in the places where news happen to see events for themselves, but people are not willing to do any of those nor are those always feasible. So up to what extent is the expectation of objectiveness from journalism realistic? I mean, I never thought for the life of me that news are supposed to be 100% objective, precisely because events are being reported from the understanding of someone else. This is why you consume information from more than one source. What if the people consuming news are part of the problem?