Yes, we've always had partisan papers. But the difference today is that instead of declaring their partisanship openly, papers -- and media in general -- operate under the rubric of being "objective." That's the Big Lie. As a consumer of news I like to hear both sides of issues in a forthright way, not cloaked in phony neutrality.
I'd add that with the advent of electronic media a new personal element has been added to news reporting. When reassuring personalities like Cronkite with his soothing avuncular manner enter people's living rooms, viewers can be easily swayed -- especially when only one side of issues is highlighted in positive terms.
That was Lippmann's innovation. The "new thing under the sun".
IMHO, the rubric of being "objective” - the Big Lie - is explained by Adam Smith:" People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”"People of the same trade” of journalism “meet together,” virtually, via the wire services. They have been doing so on a continuous basis since before the Civil War.The claim of journalistic objectivity is logically impossible, and cynical. The claim that “journalists are objective” is a claim that journalist don’t even have to try to be objective. False - What is true is that journalists go along and get along with each other - and call that “objectivity.” And others go along and get along with the journalism cartel just like journalists do, but they are not called “objective.” They are called “liberal,” of “progressive” or “centrist” or “moderate.”
Since “liberals” go along perfectly with the journalism cartel, ”liberals” never get libeled - whereas conservatives routinely do. Thus the Warren Court’s 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision - which made it impractical for politicians to sue for libel - affects Democrats and Republicans alike, in precisely the same sense that a law against sleeping under bridges affects the rich and the homeless alike.
Since Sullivan practically eliminates libel suits by politicians, it gives journalists delusions of grandeur of being “the Fourth Estate” - of having rights not applicable to the people at large. That is no wise a constitutional conceit; the only difference between a journalist and any other person its that others do not have presses yet. But they are fully entitled to buy one within their means whenever they wanna.
In Sullivan, SCOTUS claimed that
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”. . . which sounds great until Antonin Scalia sinks his teeth into it. In reality, the Bill of Rights was subtly crafted not to change the right to sue for libel, or any other right. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was precisely to assure that the rights of the people, as then understood, would not be changed. And thus it was understood, until the Warren court subverted it in Sullivan.It is the fact that Republicans cannot prove objective facts in court via a libel suit which is the engine of political correctness. That is, it establishes that “liberals” have a right not only to their own opinions but to their own facts. Sullivan must be challenged and overturned.