Journalism is completely biased, and an idea of a “free and impartial press” is a false narrative created by journalists to market to the greatest common denominators and make their opinions seem like subjective fact. The truth of the matter is that journalism is inherently a flawed, failed institution which has consistently, throughout history been manipulated and twisted to portray certain viewpoints as objective fact. In order to get an impartial and unbiased look at any type of event or news, you either need to be there for yourself, hear about it from first hand witnesses and those involved, or wade through a disgusting cesspit of opinions and praise of one’s own take on history and current events as to almost be a chore, so comically obvious in its agendas that the fact people trust any journalists in the era of free, unadulterated information is laughable.
Like television, or the radio, or music, literature is simply another form of entertainment through which educational and informative knowledge can be handed off from presenter to audience. Like any means of spreading information, literature is subjective based upon the personality and beliefs of the author, and no other type of literature is so subject to absolute distortion of truth in a societally harmful manner than journalism, especially in the modern era. The absolute manipulation of truth in journalism has been a long-running journalistic practice, long before the notion of “yellow journalism” entered the mind of Pulitzer or Hearst. The press has always been a means for people to output knowledge and information, as well as a means for people to distort the truth and conform society around their point of view. When you think of propaganda, you undoubtedly think of big posters and censorship or manipulation of the press. Words are the most easily controllable form of information ever, and as powerful as freedom of press is, manipulation of speech is more prevalent, more intrinsic to human nature, and just as powerful.
Ultimately, journalism will never be unbiased because journalism is a business, and journalists are purveyors of a worldview which they believe is absolutely correct. Have you ever felt like journalists are talking down to you? Have you ever noticed that a newspaper such as the Washington Post or Buzzfeed (two very far-flung comparisons, but I think fishing from both sides of the journalistic spectrum shows how universal of a problem this is) seem to just dismiss certain groups of people, fostering a culture in which the actual relaying of real-world information has been subsided for cleverly-worded op-eds? It’s not just you. This is a trend which even the news business itself has recognized, trying to play it off as an evolution within the practice rather than an exemplification of the negative traits which have always lurked in the collective subconscious of those within the industry. Op-eds have become so absolute in their objectivity that, in most cases, you can tell the author is ready to simply dismiss all opposition as just objectively wrong; not only this, but articles which are supposed to actually publish information on things such as wars, politics, and culture are almost always subject to slight partiality if not complete bias. It really depends from publication to publication and author to author, but the trend is far too widespread in the business to not be a problem.
Trust no journalist who tries to tell you how the world is. Trust no journalist who uses clickbait titles formatted with two contradicting or incomplete halves like I’ve done in the title that leave you without the facts. Trust no journalist who tells you that what they’ve written is what you need to know. At the end of the day, every journalist has an agenda which they are actively trying to impose upon their audience and upon society at large, whether they are aware of it or not. I’ll come out and say it: my agenda is to convince you to look out for ideological manipulation in journalism! But I’m far from a journalist myself, and I have no qualms telling you I want you to believe a subjective point of view as an equal and a peer. You don’t get that from journalists these days. What is written is what is, and what is written tends to be untruthful.