>> Yes, the prominent center, center-left, and leftish new outlets (NYT, WSJ, Economist, WP, etc.) have some bias in their writing. However, most of the authors and staff at those organizations are extremely professional and take their mandate to report and analyze very seriously. To me, this is self-evident 95% of the time.

Lets investigate this claim - news article from today's NYT interspersed with some critique...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/world/europe/serbia-prepa...

> BELGRADE, Serbia ? When he was Serbia?s information minister in the late 1990s, Aleksandar Vucic censored journalists, forced media critics out of business and served as chief propagandist for the regime of Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian strongman reviled for the atrocities that followed the breakup of Yugoslavia.

Apparently these are established facts. I have not done sufficient research to critique either way. The overall picture is fairly negative, I'm sure you will concur.

> Today Mr. Vucic is the prime minister of Serbia, having been elected in 2014 as
a reformer on promises to lead Serbia into a democratic future and membership in
the European Union. He has renounced the extreme nationalist views of his past.

Apparently also established facts. The juxtaposition is somewhat cynical, indicating a hypocrisy. How does this juxtaposition narrative match similar stories of currently elected politicians who were once part of regiemes deemed 'bad', and what criteria are used to label them as such?

> Western leaders rely on him as a partner to maintain calm within the Serbian min
orities in Kosovo and Bosnia, to support their migration policies and to keep su
fficient distance from Russia ? even though Russia?s president, Vladimir V. Puti
n, has professed his support for Mr. Vucic.

More summary facts, also implying that the Serbian minorities are instigators in ethnic troubles in various areas, and the other groups are victims of same. Sets up a false dichotomy between distance from Putin and Putins endorsement. Is that same dichotomy applied to WSJ treatment of Russia-China relations? If not, what geopolitical bias might relate to such a inconsistency in reportage?

> However, Serbian journalists who have reported critically on Mr. Vucic say that
little has really changed. They say that tactics of harassment and intimidation
have made it almost impossible to do fair-minded journalism.

"Some Say"... (I will give them that this is a transition paragraph)

> Stevan Dojcinovic is the editor of the Crime and Corruption Reporting Network, a
nonprofit organization that does online investigative journalism. He is 31, wit
h a steely personality, a short scruffy beard and metal piercings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organized_Crime_and_Corruption...
"
Radu and Sullivan realized more cross-border investigative reporting was needed and started OCCRP with a grant from the United Nations Democracy Fund.
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Democracy_Fund
"
UNDEF supports projects that strengthen the voice of civil society, promote human rights, and encourage the participation of all groups in democratic processes. The large majority of UNDEF funds go to local civil society organizations -- both in the transition and consolidation phases of democratization
"

No direct insight on the OCCRP organization, however it appears to be externally
funded through an organization with a distinct philosophical and socioeconomic perspective, which, is not to disagree that there is likely much corruption here which should be studied.

Relatedly, I wonder how much the UNDF funds research into US lobbying and campaign
finance corruption, or have we already 'consolidated as a democracy'?

> He was investigating the undeclared assets of Mr. Vucic?s family last year when
his picture appeared on the front page of The Informer, a popular pro-Vucic tabl
oid in Serbia, five times in one month. Some of the photographs and personal inf
ormation could only have been obtained from government surveillance, Mr. Dojcino
vic says.

Definately cause for concern I'd say, were it me. Though I nearly digested the summary dismissal of this outlet as 'pro regime' without even questioning it. Where does the WSJ editorial staff post it's guidelines for evaluating news sources as such, and what is it basing this critique on?

> Other articles accused Mr. Dojcinovic of working alternately for organized crime
, the businessman and philanthropist George Soros and Western intelligence agenc
ies, without explaining how he managed to juggle working for all three at the sa
me time.

This presumes this is not possible?

Here's a scenario: oligarchs funding preferred organized crime groups and social organizations on behalf of state security apparatuses in order to create political networks with which to exert local political influence, the same as it has been since the dawn of time? You know, the same thing the NYT is accusing Putin of using Russian oligarchs to do with the FSB, the Russian mob and 'pro russia' groups?

Stopping here, but I think I've made my point:

Sorry man, if you read between the lines, the emperor has no clothes.

And yes, this goes for all news sources - Xinhua, RT, Al Jazeera, BBC, etc.

And for the record I have no distinct conclusion about this topic, not being informed
enough to make a call.

I do agree with you that more 'reputable' reporters do their best - however that 'best'
is more often than not couched in the socio-political and philosphical biases which they, their editorial staff, owners, and dominant national culture share.