I learned of the existence of bias in the media back in the late 1970s, and subscribed to AIM for a year or two. Why did I stop? Because I was convinced! The parade of further examples became a twice-told tale, a bit like reading a daily report on the rising of the sun.Once I was convinced of bias in the media, the issue was no longer "whether" but "why". And I have studied on *that* problem ever since. And I believe that my very reaction in discontinuing my AIM subscription is a perfect illustration of the reason for "bias" in "the media."
Why the scare quotes? Because in the first place, "the media" refers generally to *entertainment* media--and of those media in fact only *journalism* is "nonfiction," and carrying promises of objectivity. In the second place, the First Amendment requires that the government permit the expression of perspectives--and my "perspective" may be your "bias."
In law a contract with a quid pro quo is binding, but a mere "promise" is NOT enforceable in court. That undoubtedly leads to hard feelings when promises are not kept. And that is precisely the position of the AIM writer and reader--journalism *promises* objectivity but delivers entertainment, then takes refuge in the First Amendment to ward off any legal enforcement of its promises.
So far as PRINT journalism is concerned, the matter rests there, and the only possible response is to attack the credibility of journalism's claims of "objectivity." The Rush Limbaugh approach. Broadcast journalism is on altogether different constitutional footing, at least in principle.
This thread is my study of "the freedom of speech, or of the press"; whenever I post a reply to another thread which seems clarify my thinking on that issue I link it here.