BuzzMachine has a very interesting viewpoint on the so-called impartiality of journalists. Albeit technical and rather thickly written, it definitely a very good point.
"There I think we see the corner into which the impartial journalist paints himself. He is looking for cover for the judgments he makes. He says there is interest in the story and so that's why they cover it. But there are plenty of stories for which there is little interest – such as suffering in various poor corners of the world – yet journalists cover them because they believe these events and issues are important. They made a judgment and that is itself not impartial. Indeed, what I want is more information about what goes into that judgment – more transparency."
In short, we wouldn't be writing about it if it didn't interest us. Well of course. I can't very well write about something and keep you interested if I'm not passionate about it myself. Then again, I don't claim to be impartial in this blog.
Nevertheless, no matter what media outlet you prefer, there is going to be a bias. Do you talk about something of which you have no opinion? And if you do, how long do you think you will hold another person's interest?
I believe these terms, impartial and objective, to be misleading, and agree with Jeff of BuzzMachine that they are absolutely obsolete. There is an inherent bias in every single story presented to you – the question you should ask is whether that bias benefits you or not.
On advertiser supported media outlets where the advertisers could literally stop the presses if they pulled their ads, the presses are obviously running only for the advertisers. Not you. Media is definitely one of those industries where bigger certainly is not better. Rather, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.