[koheripbal]

You're choosing to fixate on a characterization of the past you believe I implied - which isn't an important aspect of my comment.

Being unbiased, and offering multiple points of views is something mature readers value - both in the past and today. It is something a journalist's should aspire to as a matter of professionalism.

Can you make the honest argument that you want a news outlet to not even try to be unbiased when reporting to YOU? My experience with people who advocate biased journalism is that they want others to consume biased journalism that they agree with - because they believe they are immune to the bias.

If you are not paying for news, you are the product and not the consumer. And I specifically choose my news outlets based upon my perception of their quality of journalism, which heavily includes their degree of bias and the depth of their coverage.

[Dah00n]

I'd like to hear what publications are less biased (I won't write not biased because I don't believe in magic or miracles). Can you name just one?

[koheripbal]

I get the impression you want me to name a specific publication so you can argue that it is just as biased as The Guardian. ...which isn't the point of this conversation.

Can we simply agree that being less biased is better than being more biased, as a fundamental principle?

Or are you honestly making the argument that you prefer more bias in news you read?

[Dah00n]

I'm arguing that you can't name something like what you described.

[koheripbal]

Can we agree that being less biased is better than being more biased?