Think about it this way: I come across an article on XYZ site. I determine (or guess) that XYZ's agenda is generally conservative, and I consider myself a liberal. What do I do with that assessment? Do I stop reading and move on? Do I preemptively and summarily discount anything the article has to say? Or do I continue to read, perhaps skeptically, but nevertheless with an open mind?
I'd like to think we're doing the latter. But I'm not convinced.
My point is, it's totally fine to consider the source when making assessments of an article. It's totally fine to consider the source's agenda. But if seeking out the agenda becomes a routine, primary step in the process of consuming news, that worries me. That's essentially just seeking out confirmation of one's own biases as a reader.
The real problem today is most media today (and I don't include ProPublica in this) isn't even objective anymore. They're just biased, and engage in biased activism, with little objectivity and facts in its way.
Glenn Greenwald did an interview on this issue recently, which I think is worth watching for his perspective on this. Some may see Greenwald as "biased", but I think he's not only less biased than most "journalists" or pro-establishment figureheads on TV, but that more journalists should strive to be like him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance
I found the media bias article on Wikipedia to be a good primer on types of bias to keep in mind while reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias#Types
It's also been useful in identifying which types of bias people refer to when they're talking about bias. I know I personally didn't have a system in place to categorize these things, and generally thought of only a few of them at a time.
Accurately reporting current events is an agenda.
So for a meaningful criticism, you need to point out how their agenda is pernicious or contrary to their stated purpose, not just complain that they have it.
'Balance' is often used as a cover for an agenda.
If you strongly disagree with someone and care to correct them you should actually UPVOTE them. This way the public gets to learn the correct way/thinking/method. If you bury them many who may have the same wrong notion may not get the chance to be enlightened.
Hardly tired- biases and agendas caused the deep political divide in the U.S. and Brexit in England. While it's not news to those in the know, it's certainly not something we should hide or stop talking about.
Here's a study for you:
http://siepr.stanford.edu/highlights/sticking-script-rise-bi...