Is it time for unbiased journalism to end, what happens if writers have opinions? More interesting news?

One of the classic rules of media journalism is being unbiased.  But is unbiased journalism real?

The Illusion of Unbiased Journalism

The title is not a misprint. There is no such thing as unbiased journalism, just like the term "political science" is an oxymoron. There is no quantitative scientific formula for winning an election, for the variable of the voter's mind is too inconsistent, and thus there is no such thing as unbiased journalism because of that same human factor.

GigaOm writes on the issues of Twitter and Journalism.

Twitter and journalism: It shouldn’t be that complicated

The Associated Press caused a minor furore recently when the news-wire serviceupdated its social-media policy and forbid its writers from expressing any opinions on Twitter, including implied opinions caused by retweeting others. In the wake of that controversy, Jeff Sonderman at the Poynter Institute has suggested thatjournalists could use their own Twitter shorthand to prevent anyone from getting the wrong impression when a reporter retweets something. But as I’ve argued before, all we really have to do is admit that journalists of all kinds might have opinions, instead of trying to pretend that they don’t, or trying to force them not to.

Anyone who thinks journalists don't have a bias hasn't had a lengthy conversation with one in a bar.  Most have very strong opinions, but when they write for their job the "unbiased journalism" rules kick in.

I have lost the articles I found that discussed how part of what got unbiased journalism its start is when a newspaper became a monopoly in area news it was in its best interest to tell both sides of the story to maximize readership which then maximizes subscriptions and advertising.

But in this day, monopoly news is out.  People want to hear opinions.  And it is what they expect.  How many times have you read something expecting some good points and are disappointed there is no clear opinions.  I know many who have had media interviews spent a lot of time explaining their issues, and then when the article comes out their expert opinion is compared to a nobody, but a nobody who has the opposing view that allows the journalist to appear unbiased.

By pretending that their journalists don’t have opinions, when everyone knows that they do, mainstream media outlets are suggesting their viewers or readers are too stupid to figure out where the truth lies, or too thick to consider the facts of a story if the reporter happens to have retweeted someone or joined a Facebook page. Given that kind of treatment, many of those looking for news are likely to migrate to sources that admit they have views on events, rather than continue to be talked down to by newspapers and TV networks that pretend they are above that sort of thing.

GIgaOm highlights the power of Twitter.

But all that reinforces is how media entities like CNN are missing the point about social media, or seeing only the potential negatives instead of the positives. As journalism professor Robert Hernandez noted on Twitter:

Robert Hernandez
The thing is RT/Twitter/social media is working fine. It's traditionalists that don't get it and want to 'fix it,' aka control it.