That's not journalism. That's activism and advocacy masquerading as journalism. In other words, it's propaganda. Things were better, when pieces that were clearly opinionated were in the Opinions section of the newspaper. Now entire newspapers are opinions.
To be fair, pure objectivity is impossible unless you only present facts and avoid selective omission, but it doesn't mean we can't strive to try and be as objective as possible. Saying that it's impossible to be objective, so we shouldn't even bother trying is at the root of our current problems.
I know inflammatory editorial injections into headlines and articles can increase the amount of clicks and ad revenue, but I wonder how much of this is a marketing tactic and how much is a genuine shift towards heightened polarization among newspaper staff.
The point is, in a climate which was less politically charged He, a person who has no track record, is still painted as someone who is part of the problem.
Some ramifications:
- people find these stories less credible
- alienation of allys either directly or indirectly
- undue backlash
- distrust of media (interviewer and audience)
- lowers bar for being a "bad person" and creates noise. E.g. PGs quote vs. McClure's actions potentially grouped into the same convo.
It's so hard to see both sides of things now in a climate much more intense and does less due diligence.
Tldr: Agenda first journalism is causing more problems than it solves.