I've thought of another test, actually, and that one is easier to carry out: what are journalists today saying on the topic? https://nationalpress.org/topic/ob

I've thought of another test, actually, and that one is easier to carry out: what are journalists today saying on the topic? https://nationalpress.org/topic/objectivity-journalism-new-norms-debate/ https://nationalpress.org/topic/objectivity-journalism-new-n... https://dailycaller.com/2023/01/31/major-news-outlets-objectivity/ https://dailycaller.com/2023/01/31/major-news-outlets-object... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/to-regain-trustthe-news-media-need-objectivity/2023/02/26/641dafc4-b5d8-11ed-b0df-8ca14de679ad_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/to-regain-trustthe-n... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/30/newsrooms-news-reporting-objectivity-diversity/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/30/newsrooms... So obviously they themselves are aware that they're doing something differently. >Nonpartisanship was particularly important for a paper that was a national leader in covering politics and government. As the final gatekeeper for Post journalism, I stopped voting or making up my own mind about issues. As Bradlee had, I insisted on noninvolvement of Post journalists in political activity or advocacy of any kind, except voting. I also worked to make The Post newsroom more diverse, and encouraged everyone to have a voice in our decision-making. The bit about not voting is something that today's "journalists" would reject completely, I'm pretty sure. I wouldn't lie down on the tracks for "objectivity" if instead we got "nonpartisanship."