Ratings and viewer-share is what gets in the way of mainstream journalistic objectivity. The modern standard of objectivity in journalism actually didn't become fashionable until the 1920's. It had a good run, but was considered "boring" and turned reporters into mere stenographers who for the most part, were just repeating what they were told, with little analysis. This was called the objective style or Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite style of journalism. It all started to erode in the late 1960's when people like Rolling Stone magazine's “gonzo” journalist Hunter S. Thompson said “objective journalism” is a pompous contradiction in terms. Then a New York Times columnist and associate editor Tom Wicker called objectivity the press’s “biggest weakness,” arguing that it privileged the perspectives of the powerful and caused journalists to withhold their knowledge from readers. Experiments in journalists expressing their own analysis and opinions were tried, and lo and behold, ratings soared. It quickly escalated into a game of sides. The game became pick a side, any side, and stick to it, and as long as you can get people to agree or be agitated, ratings will soar. Objective journalism gave way to point-of-view or POV journalism, and that's pretty much what we have today. Many, many studies have shown that the average person attracted to journalism as a career has left-of-center personal political opinions, and that is why most mainstream media leans in that direction. However any viewpoint that gets you mad, or agitated or makes you tell your friends to listen or read the same thing you just did, is money in the pockets of the media on all sides, and they count on this now to make a living.
