[flagged]
It's a lot easier to think about journalism as the result of human output that is indeed biased towards certain ideas, and to then read from various things, look into things yourself, or reading things from outlets that you believe have your interests at heart.
Expecting one group to collect all the info and present a pro/con list is gonna be very hard, but if you just check out a handful of outfit's coverage on something you might get a good enough picture to apply some judgement.
The motte: nobody is perfectly neutral, so no journalism can be perfectly objective. (true)
The bailey: it is normal and reasonable for journalists to present a biased narrative without even attempting to find or mention relevant information that would contradict it. (false)
Objectivity is an ideal that, while impossible to perfectly achieve, can certainly be done better or worse, and is important for journalists to think about if they want the trust of the public.
where did you hear this silly rule? It sounds like something a child would make up when they don't want to hear something
>they don’t overtly lie or fabricate data to support their case... that’s true of many propaganda outfits.
another thing which is true of "many" propaganda outlets is they don't literally give you cancer, and that is an observation exactly as discerning as yours, because they are both also true of "many" truthful media outlets
if you have an issue with the specific article, or the facts alleged within, that's one thing, but the facts not reflecting well on your viewpoint and you being upset they aren't reporting other things which would make you feel better, is not a criticism of them