All journalists receive a two-dictionary set when they graduate. One is used when Rs are in office and the other for Ds.
The 0media and the Democrats are one and the same. The 0media leads the way to the left, and the Democrats follow. Journalists are the front line in the war on conservatives.
It is in my experience a great mistake to try to prove that journalism is not objective - for the simple reason that that is a political opinion. You would do just as well to expect to be able, in an hour's conversation, to convert a Democrat to a Republican. My point is not the mere fact that I can cite examples of tendentiousness in journalism until the cows come home, and my point is not simply that no one can prove that journalism is objective because lack of bias is an unprovable negative. My point is that I have a right to listen to Rush Limbaugh, provided only that he makes his program available to me on terms that I am able and willing to meet, without reference to what a politician or judge, or all of them, think of Rush Limbaugh's opinions. Just as surely as your garden variety "sheeple" has a right to listen to Katie Couric. A government which distinguishes between the two is not operating under the Constitution.
The claims of journalists to "objectivity" are mere self-promotion. Journalism as we know it is an invention of the Associated Press, which was founded two generations after the words "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of . . . the press" were ratified into the Constitution. Belief that "the press" in the First Amendment refers specifically to the Associated Press, or that "the press" was supposed by the framers of the Constitution to be objective, or that members of the Associated Press are in fact objective, qualifies you for membership in the class of citizen known as "sheeple."