[zzzcpan]

> once-objective mainstream journalism

Objective journalism was never ever a thing. That's why Manufacturing Consent happened and all the works from Edward Bernays and all the way to Noam Chomsky.

What journalism had before though is just more consistency in worldview, because mass media was very centralized and pushed much more consistent propaganda with nothing to oppose it.

[benlumen]

There might never have been some noble objective, but there were at least the business incentives to appeal to a broader audience because of the centralized distribution methods, no? I think Matt Taibbi wrote about this. Market forces then and now.

[watwut]

I mean, as much as Matt Taibbi articles are fun to read, he never came across to me as objective nor trying to be objective. A lot of what he writes is all about showing his viewpoint and appealing to people with similar viewpoint.

[flr03]

Objectivity will be subjective even outside of the communication model described in Manufacturing Consent.

Ie, you can read the French newspaper, "Canard Enchaine" and verify that it doesn't tick the checkboxes of the five filters of editorial bias. Nonetheless that's a very opinionated newspaper. Opinions are by definition subjective. And, as even Chomsky acknowledged, journalists intentions are in the majority good. But, like we are, are very much trapped in an unavoidable ideology.

[AnimalMuppet]

I don't know who warned you, but no, going against the dominant ideologies here is not a bannable offense. It can be bannable if 1) that's all you talk about here and 2) you talk about it in the wrong way?

What's the wrong way? Personal attacks, attacks on groups of people, and/or consistently too much snark and not enough substance. Complaining about the moderation and/or downvotes doesn't go over big, either.