Your analysis of whether or not a journalist is "ideologically biased" seems to take an unusual tack. You seem to judge yourself "impartial" and everyone else by that metric. The farther away the lean from you puts them in your ideological brackets. If they don't lean very far at all, they are likewise "objective."

It's not uncommon, but it leads to silliness, like Jake Tapper being "objective" rather than as he is, stridently conservative; like a complete blindness to the corporate effect on both MSNBC and Fox; like your dismissal of left-leaning reporters who do good work but rake muck on exactly the wrong side of the stable.

Once you admit that even you have ideological heuristics, patterns of thought that organize the sensory data into manageable bits, you might join the rest of us here on terra firma.

Oh dear god.

A poignant curse . . . coming from an avowed atheist. ;-)

I'm sorry to say that you didn't get that information [about the slanting effect of money] because the book wasn't interested in conspiracy theories.

Maybe you should read it again. Remember the part of the book with Jefferson and Hamilton funding different outlets?

Jefferson arranged for Freneau to receive a salary of $250 a year; Hamilton had seen to it that Fenno was much more lavishly compensated, reportedly arranging to pay him ten times that amount, which, according to the National Gazette, "cannot otherwise than have some sort of influence on the Editor of the Gazette of the United States, especially when his avaricious principles are brought into view."

(Eric Burns, Infamous Scribblers, Perseus Books Group, 2006, pp. 281-282, I underlined.)

Money has its effect. More money has more effect.