Because I don't think there is a truly objective viewpoint. Opinions are fine.....best example probably being Murrow's reporting on McCarthyism. The problem is, even with opinionated reporting, there will always be people who disagree. In some ways, I think the media often times tries to be too objective and doesn't call politicians out on their lies. They just try to take what politicians say and report it, with little to no fact checking. If there is anything we know, it's that politicians lie...... a lot....for meaningless reasons often times.

The then-director of the CIA (who was a lifelong military man) wanted to be more forthcoming with the public, so I'm not sure that's what's going on here.

I'll copy the question I was asked, "Do you think there can be an objective media in regard to politics, despite an overwhelming left bias per individual?"

I agree with your point.....social networks matter, but I don't think this means the media cannot be objective. People just have to be cognizant of their biases and account for them in their reporting (meaning I think the media can be objective......it just takes effort). I also don't know the job market for reporting, but I imagine part of the problem is just self selection, meaning there are more liberals in reporting because liberals value reporting jobs more than conservatives.

Sure there can.

"Airplane exploded today at 9:15 AM."

"Jim Boehner met with President Obama today to discuss (insert topic)" 

"Congressional Republicans vetoed the (insert bill) today by a margin of (insert vote)"

No need to add opinions to break the news to people.

I find you highly suspect now that you want the media's opinion about their own out of context quotations of politicians.

Well, theoretically it can be objective, but that's pretty unlikely. And being aware of one's bias doesn't mean that one will address that bias in a productive manner (or at all), much like a white person might try to overcome his biases by being patronizing to all non-whites. It's just bias expressing itself in a different way. It could be that one reason most reporting is so insipid and relies so heavily on false balance is because of an attempt to address this bias. "I'm a liberal, but I have to play it down the middle so I will just say, 'This side said this and this side said that.'"

I think you're missing my point....I'm talking about philosophical objectivity....not whether the news can report a story without adding their opinion to it, which is why I don't like the term (I thinks it's a loaded term). I don't understand why its a bad thing for me to want politicians called out on their lies....it informs the public. If Obama starts citing some numbers to prove a point, I find it useful if the media can tell me whether those numbers are true or misconstrued. I personally find politifact to be one of the most useful news sources for this reason.....especially during debate season.

Report the facts. If they lied, back it up with a fact. 

It's completely feasible for a news outlet to remain completely objective.

Ummmmm.....okay.....what are you disagreeing with me about then. My quote, "In some ways, I think the media often times tries to be too objective and doesn't call politicians out on their lies. They just try to take what politicians say and report it, with little to no fact checking."

GameOver22 said:

Because I don't think there is a truly objective viewpoint. 

^this.

I think you're missing my point....I'm talking about philosophical objectivity....not whether the news can report a story without adding their opinion to it, which is why I don't like the term (I thinks it's a loaded term). I don't understand why its a bad thing for me to want politicians called out on their lies....it informs the public. If Obama starts citing some numbers to prove a point, I find it useful if the media can tell me whether those numbers are true or misconstrued. I personally find politifact to be one of the most useful news sources for this reason.....especially during debate season.