[kick]

Journalism was rarely feigning objectiveness: during the 1920s through the 1970s, some of the strongest voices in favor of labor were journalists. "Neutrality" is largely a construct, or meme, that has been pushed by Rupert Murdoch since he founded his "news" network. Naturally, his own properties are nowhere near objective, despite some people claiming WSJ magically escapes bias.

Everything is naturally biased, the only distinction is whether an entity is open about their bias. This goes for anything: whether it was the New York Times and FOX hawking for nearly every war during the 2000s, or it was Newsweek favoring MLK Jr. and Life describing his speeches with phrases like "demagogic slander" during the 1960s, everyone's naturally got an opinion. This doesn't stop applying when writing about a subject.

[throwaway894345]

> Journalism was rarely feigning objectiveness

Granted. The extent to which journalism is valuable is the extent to which it is neutral and objective. When it abandons even the pursuit of truth, it becomes a social ill.

> Everything is naturally biased, the only distinction is whether an entity is open about their bias.

I don't think this is true on any level of analysis (though it is one of the most popular and obvious of mistruths). At the individual level, one can choose to counterbalance his biases or commit himself to them. He can choose to lean on rhetoric or reason. He can debate against his most competent opponents or he can choose stooges. He can choose between straw men and steel men. He can choose to be honest (if fallible) or dishonest.

At an organizational level, we can choose between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. We can have an ideological monoculture or a diverse culture. We can build a culture that calls out rhetoric and favors reason. The net result of a heterodox organization isn't the absolute lack of bias, but the bias is severely attenuated compared to the modern newsroom.