IMO no news outlet can ultimately be objective, even if they want to be. No matter how hard you try to reflect all angles on a story, you still have to prioritise some stories over others, and this still contributes to setting an agenda around which public discussion circulates
I always feel like I learn most about the world from commentary pages. They make no pretence at objective factual reporting, but instead present a view of the world coming from a specific angle. So long as you are aware of this angle, you can take from them the questions that you think are important and investigate them yourself using a wider range of sources than just one newspaper.
The Guardian is probably better at this than most UK newspapers, in that it presents a comparatively wide range of opinion, ranging from slightly right-wing libertarian (Simon Jenkins) to what would be classed as pretty far-left by anyone's standards (Seumas Milne), via very pragmatic social-democratic people (Polly Toynbee) Overall it is pro-labour but not uncritically so.
Although the Independent has Mark Steel on Wednesdays which wins.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... ark-steel/
Quote:
One of Labour's slogans is still: "For the many, not the few". Maybe they've got the words the wrong way round and need to see an episode of Sesame Street that goes: "Many. Few. Here are millions of people struggling to pay higher fuel bills. They are Many. Many. Here is an oil company boardroom. Are there millions? No, there are nine. Few. Few. Many people pay bills, Few people run off with the money. Many. Few."
. They have the same... journalistic integrity as the Daily Mail, just from the other side of the field.
