>He literally provided evidence of mainstream media being highly impartial in favor of Clinton (against Sanders and Trump). If people cared about impartiality, they’d be on Wikileaks side here.Good quality newspapers tend to separate reporting and editorials/opinion fairly clearly, but have always contained both. It is also wholly common for newspapers to endorse candidates for high political office within the editorial context.
It is a matter of record that newspapers and magazines endorsed Clinton over other candidates by a massive margin in the 2016 elections:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_...
I don't know where the idea that the news media is supposed to be a purely-objective fact source comes from, to be honest. This seems to be some kind of straw man.
The charge against Wikileaks, such as it is, is that while the material disclosed might be verbatim, it is obviously still subject to the editorial decisions of its leadership about which material to seek out and to disclose.
