I do not agree, however, that we should simply forsake that ideal because it is unattainable – the moment that we as readers and citizens simply accept bias and stop demanding more critical and in depth reporting that attempts to look at multiple sides, we are on a sad and dangerous path.

That is not to say that there isn't a place for opinion and partisan publications, but I think as we often see with Fox or MSNBC or the Huffington Post, outlets that try to promote an agenda become conflicted in their reporting. The reason that these more opinion-based outlets have risen in popularity, in my opinion, is that the mainstream alternative is so bland in its objectivity as to not supply any critical insight whatsoever.

The ideal of objectivity, or more accurately, multi-faceted coverage, needn't imply not saying anything important at all. I think places like Current.tv do an excellent job at complex coverage. So yes, full disclosures need to be made that show potential and inevitable conflicts of interests, but we cannot abandon the ideal of “objectivity” simply because it's unrealistic.

Interesting post, but I'm not sure I find your fear of donor influence to be a relevant point. I think it's a fallacy to think that news is unbiased. Even separating editorial from the ad execs can not stop some sort of influence from creeping in. Once we all accept that as truth, we can move on and look to ways in which we can help the reader determine the bias of the news outlet. Full disclosure, whether of donors or advertisers, is the true way to ensure our readers understand what's happening behind the scenes.