I was a journalist for ten years. I did my level best to be objective but I had my weak moments where I let my views and desires impact how I told the story. I have all the necessary experience to say I know how easy that is to do, and how common it is when the journalist does NOT have the compunction toward objectivity that I had. No journalist is perfect, but some try, while others make no such pretense. Now think about what kind of writing drives click$ and you’ll get an idea about which kind of journalist tends to advance up through the ranks and become a “known” writer who a majority of the country might read.

I share Obama’s lament, honestly I do! But he cannot help trying to imply that somehow the issue is with the readers/viewers, that they refuse to look at objective sources. The issue is that there aren’t any, that the media companies know exactly what they’re doing, and they don’t care. The media companies could choose to elevate and promote the journalists who may fail to be objective sometimes because they’re human but who ultimately remain committed to objectivity and try to uphold it. The media companies do not choose to do that. So on top of the fact that some people are shitty non-objective writers, there’s actually an incentive to be that way! The LAST people at fault are the consumers! We’d read good journalism if these chuckle-fucks would put some out!