I won’t make any specific judgments to any outlets but at a certain point you’re really just a propagandist rather than a journalist if your primary goal is to sway public opinion instead of informing people on the truth.
>if your primary goal is to sway public opinion instead of informing people on the truth.
That could cut out a lot. So much of journalism sits in a grey area in the middle of that.
edit - With my cynical hat on, the mainstream press, a. shifts product, b. sways opinion and c. tells stories that it thinks people are interested in to help a. and b.
The press has found over time that most of the new stories people are interested in are in some regard varying degrees of true, or at least based on the fact something may have happened, so it publishes those. Actually publishing truth is something it essentially does entirely by accident, almost in the same way as Hollywood occaisionaly produces art.
He selectively revealed truths that were hidden from us by people who were either out-right lying, or were totally ignorant to the existence of what was revealed.
So, as a citizen, do I trust an individual who selectively introduces me to information, or do I trust the large conglomerate governments which I now know to wholeheartedly lie to me on a repeated basis?
In old Louisiana parlance : " if I gotta choose between bags of shit, i'll take the one that comes with the clothes pin for my nose. "
Thats fair, but he's a rank amateur at that compared to many major news organisations. At one point the BBC had it down to a fine art, but these days they seem to be getting a lot more clumsy.
So I think relativism doesn’t help here.