Like 50% pro-democrats, 50% pro-republicans in total. Why would not press be objective in the world of free speech? What is corrupting objective journalism?
As long as you agree that mainstream media is one-sided and biased, you answered your own question. Now answer mines.
You haven't explained what media on the right your refer to as unbiased. That in itself will speak mountains to what your point is. Let me give you an example for simplification. Many on the right say the election was stolen because Trump did not win, which infers that had he won it would have been fair. That in itself is logically problematic. Worse yet, despite massive evidence to the contrary given by election reps of both parties and confirmed by many courts, Trump and his squawk box continue to maintain the election was stolen from him. So where is the bias?
There is no mainstream media on the right. The election was 'stolen' b/c it was unfair from the beginning ensured by the broad anti-Trump media campaign and the menacing terrorizing American cities riots leading into election (supported and encouraged by Democrats and which have magically ceased after Biden's win) and any Trump's lawful attempts to recount the votes were rebuffed by the deep state. Explain to me how is it possible to impeach a president in one day?
Wow... not sure what to say... except there is a real dangerous truth to the reality that the internet and polarized media leaves us all in bubbles. There is no longer discernment between facts and opinions, everything is packaged, fed and absorbed. This is the primary reason I left the US. I don't need any of this crap in my life. Sorry, it would take too long, too much effort and a different medium or forum to address in detail.
No the election was not stolen and there is no voter fraud. But the election was lost by Trump due to the election rules regarding the election administration being non-transparent, ambiguous and inconsistent. Why does every state have to have different election rules? It's a federal election. Election rules should be administered at the federal level and should be unambiguous, consistent and uniform across all states. If this had been the case then there would've been so much less conflicts and doubt over the result of this election. And Biden's presidency would've received lot more legitimacy and authority and it would've made things so much easier and smoother for him in running the country later on as well. At least if he had been elected by election rules that are unambiguous, consistent and uniform across all states, people would at least acknowledge even if they didn't vote for him that he really is the president truly elected by the people. Now we would just never know. He's the president; the electoral college results are certified by Congress. Yeah but were those results really correct? That's going to be a question that people will always have at the back of their mind that people never needed to have with all the presidents before him. Now he's gonna have to struggle to run a country and fight the doubts of his legitimacy. And that's a problem. When a ruler's legitimacy is doubted, even by a shadow of a doubt, it makes his/her job 100 times harder. This is why we have democracy so to make sure people elect a leader that they truly want and will support. But it's a shame that it's marred by problematic rules.
Conflict of Interest with his family's extensive business ties in China for a start. The entire Trump's presidency was marred by allegations of Russian influence starting with the election process itself. If the Russians could influence an election, you don't think China could rig an election? China is richer than Russia.