I dont think its even about partial or impartial.Everyone has a bias of some sort. The problem with the MSM is they do not even attempt to dig for information or provide critical analysis.

On some occasions they will air "competing claims" , but only when it suits them.

Very rarely is there any attempt to cross examine the "claims" - the term "claims" in this context meaning anything put forward by any party - from an AP Wire story to a politicians statement. Its not even the journalists though - the people who decide what stories to run with, how to present them, and whether to dig for context or evaluate its merits does not fall to the journalists.

Those activities are handled by the Editors, Producers, and Executive Producers. Of course like in any job, the lower ranks of talking heads and field reporters and writers quickly learn to produce the types of materials their bosses want to see. The Editors, Producers and Executive Producers of course report to top executives.. and work to produce the type of material *their* bbosses want to see.

The irony of the whole situation is, is that the Maddows and Hannities of the world actually - by MSM standards - do some of the best reporting. Of course sometimes they screw the pooch and mis-report. But the openly biased media at least has incentive to search for stories and cross examine some claims - even if they only apply that rigor to their ideological and political foes.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)