And this is where the author doesn't understand or perceive his own bias.
I submit that the meaningful version of independence is simple: The news media should tell its audience true things, in proportion to their importance, with no concern for how anyone feels about it.
"In proportion to their importance" is the important bit.
Who decides what is "proportionate" in importance? That's where partisanship comes in. If I ask DU, "Is the President's age an important concern?" what's the response? It's almost overwhelmingly, "Of course not! Who would even ask such a thing?! We shouldn't even be talking about this." Now, grab twenty random people off the street. Ask them the same question.
The response is going to be much, much, much different.
Is the situation at the border important? Democrats say not really. Republicans think our continent is imploding.
Who decides how much that gets discussed? Journalists are going to make choices about that. And if you're on the "we shouldn't be talking about this" side of the equation, the mere mention of an issue is going to be de facto proof of media bias. Because narrative is shaped by what gets said and what doesn't get said. And partisans have incredibly specific views and feelings about what should be said and what should not. How often do you find articles on Fox News about a social media racism story? Not too often - if ever. How often do I see it on CNN? All the time. How important is that story? Depends on who you ask, doesn't it? DU posts all kinds of stories that, honestly, I don't think are even slightly important. And the Right almost never writes or publishes something that I'm like, "My day is better for having read that. I needed to know. Thank god they're doing the job."
This author seems pretty blind to that. He's saying his notion of what is important or not should reign. Start reading from, "Take another look at Sulzberger’s defense of the Times covering Joe Biden’s age . . ." until the end.
That's a partisan looking for his partisan view to prevail. I know criticizing the Times is like a part-time job for some people, and I admit I subscribe to and enjoy the paper. And there are things to criticize it for.
But this author's view ain't it - and he doesn't perceive how it's not it. It's insular and interested. It has little to do with objective journalism. It's about the author's worldview prevailing.
Which is fine. But one shouldn't wrap that up in objectivity or that journalism should follow a model of "Only the things I think are important are important." Opinions on that one differ greatly, even within communities where people are generally on the same page.
= new reply since forum marked as read