On the larger scale of this issue I competely agree with you. I can say, however, that there are some better people sprinkled throughout middle America who do a pretty decent job. Those are the people I am talking about and they are not blind to the bias in their own profession. We need to criticize mercilessly the big offenders, but we need to criticize gently, and balance it with support when they get it right, the journalists who really do try to get it right.
Example: The Kansas City Star is very far left. They have a couple of moderates who are just as cut-throat for their candidates as the lefties are (there may be one exception, I haven't decided yet because he is so drowned out by the rest of them). They pretend to put forth balanced effort. Clearly they are lying and I'm not just talking about editorials, although, they do this interesting thing with that. They put stories on the front page of the local section--not on the opinion page--that look for the world like "news" stories, yet they carry the word "commentary" underneath the title. They do that a lot. They are beyond hope with their current staff and they just don't care.
The Wichita Eagle is another matter altogether. They are excellent about responding to complaints; they are quick to correct an imbalance if they think you made a good point; and they genuinely try to be respectful to all sides. Do I think they're perfect? No. Do I agree with them most of the time? Not really, though sometimes I do. Do I think they try harder to be fair than they do to push their own ideology? Yes, I really do. And my side is usually well represented on their opinion pages even if their editorial board disagrees. It would be foolish to bash these well-meaning people. We can work with people like that.
I think it is important to distinguish between the two. Ruin the reputations of the blantantly guilty, but work with the decent people who are trying to get it right. It isn't always an easy call to make.
Well, I rambled on and I am not sure I made my point but hopefully you get what I mean. I have noticed a big difference between some journalists individually and some newspapers as a whole. We need to be sure we understand the correct expectations between news and opinion, and we need to recognize the difference between genuine effort and phony pandering. It isn't that hard when you try. Often, if you read up on a subject enough, you can even trace a journalist's sources. This is especially true of opinion writers. That way you can tell if they are actually considering both sides of the issue or if they're just getting their talking points from the DNC and calling it a day.
Actually, criticism from someone as conservative as I am enhances the reputations of the ones I would criticize.
I'll take your word for it that there are some good ones. But I still maintain that the major amount of influence is in the hands of the really REALLY bad.