I'm talking about the deeper truth reflected in the journalists "baseless" comment, which poopy has addressed, though perhaps not to your liking.
I addressed this. It's irrelevant what I think about the topic of whether Alex Jones has grounds for his theories. I'm talking about bias in the media, I have no interest in discussing the career of Alex Jones. I really can't be bothered to research him to find out what he actually claims. It's not the topic in question.

When you see an expressed bias that is much softer than anything nanners brings to FTR, you object that it's unethical,
I really don't want to have to say this again. banana is not a journalist. I do not expect ethical journalism from the bananas of this world.

Media bias is not "soft", it is far too influencial.

I'm saying bias is a part of human nature and ignoring that will lead you to misunderstand the context of things you are told.
I'm not disputing that bias is human nature. So is urinating, but there's an appropriate place for that. Journalists should not show bias, you guys of all people should appreciate this. Free press. You think a journo spouting his opinion is freedom of press? Depends who's paying him. If he's on the government's payroll, well that opinion will likely be in line with state policy. The opposite of freedom of press... state media.

Your participation in the consuming of that news article was purely voluntary.
So is the journalist's decision whether to be impartial.

When I click a link that takes me to a news article, I am consenting to news, and I expect the journalist in question to subscribe to journalism ethics and standards. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journa..._and_standards

If you take a link and you computer gets infected, did you consent to it? Of course not. Same principle applies here. It's reasonable for me to expect impartial news, especially from mainstream media. Well, it's not because I know it's hard to find these days, but it should be a reasonable expectation.

Does that mean it's not really about the expression of bias, but the fact that the expressed bias was antithetical to your own biases?
Ok no, if I agreed with the bias I would still be outraged at the lack of ethical journalism.

So the liberal media outlets and the conservative media outlets are the same entity? and both of those contrary entities are a state tool?
Ultimately, yes. Of course it's a state tool... welcome to identity politics. Divide and conquer.

A much simpler explanation is that neither gives a wet slap about presenting unbiased news, but both care a great deal about ratings and the value of melodrama to rake in viewership.
Rating isn't just money... it's influence.

Stop with the whole, "I'm so sad that you guys are not me." talk. If ever there was a victim tactic, that's it.
If you're feeling depressed, then that sucks, man,
It's like the final days of a favourite pub, the last few alcoholics propping up the bar discussing where they're going to go next, bickering about the pros and cons of each candidate pub. Yeah it's sad. Not depressing sad, but sad. Sorry if that smacks of victimhood, I was hopinh it would strike a chord with some people, seeing as we're all stubbornly refusing to let this place die. This "ignore" thing, it could be the final nail. I felt it needed saying.