I'm having a Mandark-esque reaction to reading this latest Benji post. Ignoring for a second that cable news isn't really important and is only another entertainment industry, if literally every journalistic entity decided to abandon the principle of objectivity as even just a nominally important goal in their reportage, that is not a neutral change in our society, nor is it a harmless development in news itself. That can really only be the opinion of someone who has resigned themselves to living for the lol's.
Except you're making the presumption that journalistic entities operated on a principle of objectivity in the past. They didn't. They can't. There's an inherent bias simply in what is chosen to cover. The notion of any kind of objectivity is a recent phenomenon (perhaps by journalism schools??) but has been taken up so quickly than even openly biased outlets like Fox and MSNBC do more than pay fealty to it, they emphasize how hard they do.
The recent rise of the "fact check" industry is not objective at all, it only selective targets certain "facts" and even then almost always selects certain answers even in grey areas. It's another form of opinion/analysis/commentary/etc. dressed up as objectivity. But that's fine and serves a useful purpose even if imperfect.
My argument was not that "to sit back and enjoy the lulz" but that you should never pretend that journalism is objective in its aims and goals. It's human. The simple fact that they organize stories in an order means they're telling you what they think is most important to least important. This may not be the case. How many articles, news articles, have the pertinent details "below the fold" and how many include irrelevant "background" information to frame the story. One of the Washington Post articles on Northam's press conference included four whole paragraphs recounting the Charlottesville attack. Why? To frame it as a sensitive topic in the state of Virginia obstinately. Or create some kind of "greater" narrative, one it then drops to continue talking about Northam's yearbook. Why not recount the formation of the Army of Northern Virginia and the Siege of Richmond? How about the state's celebration of Mount Vernon and Monticello?
There's nothing wrong with trying to hold the press to an objective standard, but there is I think a problem in expecting one. The press has never been objective, it's more objective, collectively, now than it arguably ever has been due to competition and self-critique, but no individual component can or ever will be. And it's somewhat silly to assume that agenda is controlled top-down by shadowy forces, when individuals are already so willing on their own or together to chase their own agendas and interests with their journalism.
