A wonderful, yet archaic opinion. Alas, here in the Post Truth era the purpose of "media" is to conduct "research" to find "data" that supports the pre-determined (and convenient) "conclusion" that was arrived at before the exercise started.

There's always been a war on truth in the media, a feature I’ve observed for decades, and it was even worse when we had consistent enemies like godless communists, war protesters, and drug users to hate with impunity. It’s somewhat more expertly organised than before, using tools borrowed from earlier sensationalist, untruthful media barons like Beaverbrook, Hearst, Pulitzer, Harmsworth, and, more recently, Murdoch.

we need to remind those who give us news that their job requires them to investigate the stories, vet them, and then tell us the whole story without bias. — Athena

I guess I’ve never entirely subscribed to the view that there is a truth which mirrors nature, or a position on an event that is without bias. I agree that stories are often slanted in particular directions and that they might suit a particular narrative, but I recognise that my version of a given story or event does the same thing. Because it reflects my values, I tend to think of it as “more truthful”.

What I want from the media are stories that reflect complexity and, as you say, something like a 'whole story', with context and a sense of balance. But one problem with journalism is that the public enjoys outrage and clickbait. I’m not sure there’s much money in balance. While I don’t think we can remove bias, I think we can do better by providing more sophisticated, less sensationalised accounts of events.

This really is a lounge thread, Athena.