Newspapers are not, and never have been, objective. The whole point of owning a newspaper is to promote the owner's brand of politics. That has always been the case, going back hundreds of years, right back to the invention of the printing press and such things as Luther's Thesis at the dawn of the age of Protestantism versus Catholicism.
How anyone got the idea that any newspaper should be objective is beyond me. It isn't, it never has been, and never will be. Ironically it's something people back before the internet age knew and understood completely. They would filter every story through their own lens based on what they understood the paper's politics were, and in that way were able to understand the news items their local paper contained quite easily. A skill that seems to be lacking today, even though online news sources, especially those without a print edition, are even more political than any of the print locals ever were.
TV news did at one time did try to be objective. That devolved into some [censored] of objectivity called "both sides of the story" which quickly devolved into 30 minutes to the Police Chief and 30 minutes to the rapist; or 30 minutes to the reasonable citizen and 30 minutes to the nut job. Other nut jobs in the audience begin to not their heads appreciatively.
Even that mis-applied version of "objective" began to go away in the 1980's. on TV, although it persists in order to offer the station's non-mainstream position as if it were a legitimate news item and not attempts to create or project a divisive form of discourse.
There then came the same mis-application of "both sides to the story" due to the increased professionalism of the journalist job description, whereby starting in the 1970's students on B.Journ programs began applying the TV model to print. Before that you had journalists who learned their trade because they were stubborn, tough, and would just as likely punch you in the nose as take down your words, or pick up pistol and start firing at the enemy rather than wear a flak vest and follow some unit around under choreographed military watchful eyes. Was the former more or less likely to be "objective"? No, he had a distinct and unwavering position, and that position was "our side is always right. now get outta the way you're in my firing lane".
The unfortunate thing is unlike their parents and grandparents, who knew how to read between the lines and knew the source and it's tendencies, now we have people who would not know the first thing about vetting a source to understand it's bias (and there ALWAYS is a bias) and just take stories on face value, which is a huge error, or, worse, limit themselves to sources that cherry-feed their own politics, creating a lack of discourse, no hope of compromise, and an overall nasty political environment overall.
