No, journalists cannot completely divorce their own personal biases from the stories they cover. And even if they could, the reporters aren't the only people who decide what gets covered, how, and what gets published. Fine. I accept that.
But FACTS admit of no bias. If I write a leed that says
"Two teenage girls were struck and killed Sunday near the Overprice Mall by a driver later identified as Salvador Illegales of Juarez, Mexico. Police are withholding the names of the victims pending notification of their families."
that is a factual who-what-when-where-why leed.
If instead the leed reads
"Two privileged white girls darted in front of an automobile driven by a respected member of the Mexican-American community and were struck despite his best efforts. The girls, who had reportedly been in ill health, later succumbed to injuries."
it is clear that the second leed disposes the reader in favor of the driver and casts doubt on the actions of the girls.
My point is that the first leed -- all facts -- tells a story. The second leed -- replete with vague innuendos, emotionally charged terms, and subjective pronouncements -- casts a bias onto the events. One is an example of good journalism. One is an example of today's journalism. Can you guess which is which?
Give us facts. Keep your biases to yourself. And quit hiding behind flimsy excuses for your cowardly and unprofessional behavior.
I agree completely with your analysis. But there is another level to it - what the media covers, what it emphasizes, and what it ignores or minimizes. A pertinent example is the way the media mocked Bush for “mission accomplished,” but utterly ignored Obama’s equivalent, “we are leaving a safe and stable Iraq.”