Impartiality in journalism is completely modern bogus

I was reading The Foxification of news on The Economist and came across the quote below:

"The idea that journalists should be impartial in reporting news is a relatively recent one. “A lot of newspaper people treat it as one true religion, when it’s an artefact of a certain set of economic and historical circumstances,” says Joshua Benton of the Nieman Journalism Lab. America’s Founding Fathers nurtured a vibrant, fiercely partisan press with no licensing of newspapers or policing of content. During the 19th century newspapers gradually adopted a more objective stance, for several reasons. By appealing to a wider audience, they were able to increase their circulation and hence their advertising revenue. Consolidation, and the emergence of local newspaper monopolies, also promoted impartiality. “When you are the only paper in town, you can’t risk pissing off liberals by being too conservative, or vice versa,” says Mr Benton."

I have been harping on this point for ages.  The idea in journalism that you have to be impartial is modern and current.  It was a business decision.  The faster your own site, blog or articles have you and your personality in them in them the quicker you'll be able to build a community, kinship and comments on posts.

You have to have an opinion.  Everything boils down to sports for me.  You are doomed if you are mediocre. Either be the best,  or be the worst,  the middle is death.