[ishjoh]

I've worked with journalists and like anything there were different types of approaches to journalism like there are different approaches to any human endeavor. The ones with the most integrity started with an idea for a story but did their best to follow the evidence, and never discarded facts because they didn't fit their preconceived notions.

The ones that people are typically frustrated with but get the most clicks from 'their' side, are the ones that have an idea for a story, write the conclusion first, and then only include facts that fit that conclusion. Alternatively they discard an article if the facts overwhelmingly disagree with their original conclusion.

YMMV

[koheripbal]

...and part of the reason for that is access.

Journalists who challenge narratives are not given access to people to interview. If you are asking the wrong question, you will simply get "no comment" - and if you do it too much, people will simply stop answering your calls.

That is why the media has effectively aligned with the political parties.

You simply cannot survive in journalism without political support.

[nobodyandproud]

> The ones with the most integrity started with an idea for a story but did their best to follow the evidence, and never discarded facts because they didn't fit their preconceived notions.

It costs a magnitude more (at least) for this type of journalist, as opposed to the latter.

You can get lie peddlers of all stripes for free.