These aren't arguments for Hearst-like "objectivity". "Objectivity" was a phony invented by Hearst as an excuse for having newspaper monopolies. Everyone was terrified at the propaganda potential of having only one newspaper in town, and "objectivity" was Hearst's excuse for why it would be OK. It was not OK. The writers were not objective; they just concealed their bias under a cloud of writing style. "We report, you decide" is always a lie, and it's used by Fox News to spread propaganda, even.
These incidents are, rather, arguments for the British-style press. The British-style press, which we also had in the US prior to Hearst, has the following principles:
-- the writer's opinion is crystal clear, obvious, and their spin on the facts is probably about as partisan as you can get. So you can discount it. You *know* this is a Dodgers fan or a Biden fan.
-- but the writers never, ever, ever, ever, ever lie about or omit facts.
-- and there are a lot of different press outlets with *different attitudes*.
In short, there is a duty to present all the evidence accurately, and then you know what spin each newspaper will put on it because they wear their bias on their sleeve. So you can check a different newspaper for a different spin.
I will typically read stories about the same event in the Guardian, the Independent, the Financial Times, and the Telegraph -- and WOW, the spin is different! The Guardian is trashing the Tories, the FT is trashing Boris but not the other Tories, the Telegraph is trashing Labour, the Independent is trashing everyone -- but the facts in the article are all exactly the same.
They all include the same points, even though they put different emphasis; the Guardian mentions the points which favor the Tories (while trying to dismiss or explain them away), the Telegraph mentions the points which favor Labour (while trying to dismiss or explain them away).
This is healthy journalism. Since you are used to an *adversarial* court system, perhaps you will see why it's healthy. Each side (and there are more than two!) pitches its case and submits its evidence but everyone must work from the same evidence.
The only place I see this alive and healthy in the US traditional media is in New York City, where the NY Post (right-wing) and the NY Daily News (left-wing) can both report on some incident involving the police -- and the spin is wildly different but the facts are the same in both articles. The NY Post is making excuses for what looks like police abusing people. The NY Daily News is giving the most charitable interpretation to the actions of the person arrested. But they both have the same *facts*.
But NYC was never subject to the Hearst monopoly.
The examples you gave departed from the second principle I gave for British-style journalism: never, ever lie about or omit the facts. If there's no evidence that the bill matters to Biden's reelection but the cheerleading writer really wants it to... they write "Historically, whether Presidents pass such bills does not seem to matter to their re-election, as shown by X, Y, Z. Nevertheless, this case might be different because blah blah blah."
That's the sort of thing you see in the British press. It's good.
*SIGH* You reach an incorrect conclusion.
These aren't arguments for Hearst-like "objectivity". "Objectivity" was a phony invented by Hearst as an excuse for having newspaper monopolies. Everyone was terrified at the propaganda potential of having only one newspaper in town, and "objectivity" was Hearst's excuse for why it would be OK. It was not OK. The writers were not objective; they just concealed their bias under a cloud of writing style. "We report, you decide" is always a lie, and it's used by Fox News to spread propaganda, even.
These incidents are, rather, arguments for the British-style press. The British-style press, which we also had in the US prior to Hearst, has the following principles:
-- the writer's opinion is crystal clear, obvious, and their spin on the facts is probably about as partisan as you can get. So you can discount it. You *know* this is a Dodgers fan or a Biden fan.
-- but the writers never, ever, ever, ever, ever lie about or omit facts.
-- and there are a lot of different press outlets with *different attitudes*.
In short, there is a duty to present all the evidence accurately, and then you know what spin each newspaper will put on it because they wear their bias on their sleeve. So you can check a different newspaper for a different spin.
I will typically read stories about the same event in the Guardian, the Independent, the Financial Times, and the Telegraph -- and WOW, the spin is different! The Guardian is trashing the Tories, the FT is trashing Boris but not the other Tories, the Telegraph is trashing Labour, the Independent is trashing everyone -- but the facts in the article are all exactly the same.
They all include the same points, even though they put different emphasis; the Guardian mentions the points which favor the Tories (while trying to dismiss or explain them away), the Telegraph mentions the points which favor Labour (while trying to dismiss or explain them away).
This is healthy journalism. Since you are used to an *adversarial* court system, perhaps you will see why it's healthy. Each side (and there are more than two!) pitches its case and submits its evidence but everyone must work from the same evidence.
The only place I see this alive and healthy in the US traditional media is in New York City, where the NY Post (right-wing) and the NY Daily News (left-wing) can both report on some incident involving the police -- and the spin is wildly different but the facts are the same in both articles. The NY Post is making excuses for what looks like police abusing people. The NY Daily News is giving the most charitable interpretation to the actions of the person arrested. But they both have the same *facts*.
But NYC was never subject to the Hearst monopoly.
The examples you gave departed from the second principle I gave for British-style journalism: never, ever lie about or omit the facts. If there's no evidence that the bill matters to Biden's reelection but the cheerleading writer really wants it to... they write "Historically, whether Presidents pass such bills does not seem to matter to their re-election, as shown by X, Y, Z. Nevertheless, this case might be different because blah blah blah."
That's the sort of thing you see in the British press. It's good.