You're choosing to fixate on a characterization of the past you believe I implied - which isn't an important aspect of my comment.

Being unbiased, and offering multiple points of views is something mature readers value - both in the past and today. It is something a journalist's should aspire to as a matter of professionalism.

Can you make the honest argument that you want a news outlet to not even try to be unbiased when reporting to YOU? My experience with people who advocate biased journalism is that they want others to consume biased journalism that they agree with - because they believe they are immune to the bias.

If you are not paying for news, you are the product and not the consumer. And I specifically choose my news outlets based upon my perception of their quality of journalism, which heavily includes their degree of bias and the depth of their coverage.

Prior to modern journalism, newspapers were directly funded by political interests. Now that advertising dollars no longer provide a somewhat unbiassed source of income, publications like the guardian are relying on direct donations from their readers and I suspect that introduces some bias as well.