I think I should have clarified. When I said "journalists", i used it in the same context as this article.

Which means by "journalists" I meant "journalistic organisations". I have worked with and know many journalists who have high integrity. But at the end of the day it's the organization as a whole that decides what to focus on.

So yeah, from my experience I'm pretty sure they all get into journalism because of their ideal and each journalist as an individual (especially those who work at those top newspapers) has high journalistic integrity, but my impression is that this spirit is dying away as new entrants see what's going on in the ecosystem. It's no secret that these media companies who pride themselves on having high bar for journalistic integrity have started pouring efforts to emulate Buzzfeed (and I'm not using Buzzfeed as symbolism, they have explicitly tried to study Buzzfeed and emulate it)

> Is this actually possible? Does believing in e.g. global warming constitute bias?

I think I mentioned this elsewhere in this thread but I believe this is possible if you hire people from the both ends of the spectrum and write both points of view about the same story. This is impossible at the moment because the entire organization tends to consist of mostly left wing people or mostly right wing people, etc. It's a "company culture" thing, and you can't do this unless you change the company culture fundamentally.