Let's be realistic, most state run media, in most central European countries, take aside Hungary and Poland, are pretty objective and without censorship. They may still report what sells best. But you can actually even call them up and ask for the facts.

So, I think besides the above, and the well known, Asian and Eurasian censored media outlets, the world has a majority of free and moderate news outlets.

I think what most people here are mostly referring to, is the U.S. American media, since most of the people posting here are Americans, or Britons. And these two groups of people are mostly exposed to American media.

There is no American journalism, anymore. Only American sensationalism.

If you want good news, check who won, or whose reporters won journalism prizes and awards. Reuters, Al Jazeera, BBC (use with caution), Bloomberg -not much anymore, IPA and many more.
Actually if you are really interested in it, there are plenty or organizations that offer, fact checked and objective news. They may not have a news bulletin but their news are forshizzle.

I agree with Alien. Censorship and filtred media especially from state owned media, is very dangerous.

The problem is that nobody even botheres anymore to raise a question, or doing 5 minutes research on numbers and figures. That's why FOX NEWS is so popular, there is a distorted fact, or a straight up lie, wrapped in nice bubblegum scientific research, reported from a nice studio, and with a frosting of rightist opinion and 'what to do next' and there comes the gutter.

It's convenient and comfy to have people speaking out, your worst fears and xenophobic thoughts, and not question anything you hear. Thats American news in a nutshell.

But the good news is, the Bullsh*t mountain called FOX news is the main reason why people are going back online and finding out what is really going on. And helping the truth to come out. Well Assange and Snowden helped a lot, too. But FOX is a more reliable and consistant helper.

Hammer: I agree, but I think we should add the questions of (1) what is 'objective', and (2) what is NOT reported, or what is shuffled to the back pages, or not picked up by large media enterprises, etc. There may be other important sources illustrating just how this is done, and what the consequences of it are, but nobody who has read Chomsky's MANUFACTURING CONSENT should have any doubts as to the consequences of this sort of thing. And it's innate, and not exclusive to state-run media (US media is not directly state-run, and your own examples demonstrate that the state doesn't have to control it directly - this is a sign of the strength of political & economic elites, not of their weakness (i.e., they can do it without much direct censorship).
The problem that nobody bothers to raise a question etc. is an accepted fact throughout the media world, and can be counted on, and IS counted on (look at the garbage that Donald Trump spouts), in calculating just how to keep the mass of readers on board (e.g., with minor choices offered freely concerning minor differences about who gets to run the established machine). Scary, though not disastrous - yet (well, nearly a million refugees in/from the Middle East may have a different point of view).
As for the moral/ethical quality of the media institutions (not necessarily of all the journalists themselves) engaged in this propaganda/advertising effort, I could only start swearing.
Wonderful example of all of the above: the current US presidential election circus and the general faith that this is something approximating an ideal of democracy.
Concerning the OP: no, I would not study journalism in China, because, despite what I have written, in places with more (formally) open approaches to journalism, it is possible to acquire skills, and at least formal ideals, to carry out what SHOULD be done - though you're always going to be fighting Power, probably insidious power. But, as somebody wrote about guerrilla war, as long as the 'guerrillas' continue to exist, they have not lost, and as long as they exist, the establishment, whatever it may be, has not won. And can't, because total control is simply impossible (ask any sociologist, or quantum physicist).

worth a read www.theguardian.com/[...]

Another to read before it disappears. cmp.hku.hk/

@alien
Actually to be a very objective and accurate reporter, is actually very easy. As I teach my media students, what I learned in school: "Always describe a black and white photo, except when you describe the colors."
The art and the difficulty of a journalist is to switch off the intend to opinionate. And it's actually quite easy with a little practice.

In journalist school they teach you, you cannot be everywhere at all times, but you can try to be. That's why journalist have informants and investigators.

But sure to ask for reporters to report everything would also lead to an overflow of information and that would also lead to a negative effect, that already happened with Africa. Most audiences get used to the starving and dying in for example Africa, and thus will accept it as, it is.

That what makes a good editor. The editor will not just chose a story to sell the paper but also to cover the truth.

That's why free and independent reporting is so important, especially nowadays. And you can see the dynamic and and bending of the press changed with the internet. Look how many newspapers are struggling, some resort to sensationalism and some are getting even more real and quality striving. And some combine the two.

Another problem is the audience, what they make of an information is not the problem of the reporter. If I write 'Refugees were attacked by militia.' But someone reads 'Russian forces killing Christians.' is not the fault of the author, or editor.

Chomsky and Herman based their book very much on the American media model.
Indeed the U.S. media isn't state run and that is a problem, too.
Because as Chomsky noted the FLAK for a state run media can be desastrous, so they have to deliver good reporting, except if they are censored and put in line with political agendas, China, Hungary, Russia, and even the U.S. to some degree for the example of patriotism.

They (Chomsky and Herman) have a valid point but as I said there is reporting and there is REPORTING. That is why so many respectable outlets have such high standards.

But that is all very philosophical. I have done some reporting myself and I worked with very objective journalists and they always said; 'The truth will always come out. So stop f*cking around.'

Dazzer: Good Guardian article.
OK, hammer, I'm pretty much with you. the point I wanted to make was not about the editors and reporters so much as about the publishers, who are businessmen, and their necessary connections, or at least mutual interests, with others who hold wealth/power. So some things get published and take first place on the front page and others don't. Some truths come out a lot more prominently than others, and this is not an accident, and does have serious consequences. I've been involved in unpopular events and reported on them, and then have read what the local papers have to say about them the next day - amazing discrepancies, frightening to think of how all those who weren't there had to conceive of them, and the contexts within which they were placed. So I got a complaint about the idea of objectivity, too - read Le Monde and Le Monde Diplomatique, at least the way they used to be, you'll see what I mean - but it's philosophical, and I think I've strayed far enough from the OP.
One addition: What is it you think convinces so many people in the West that all Muslims are terrorists?
Yeah, I'm for a 'free' press, but it's hard to have one in a society molded and run by the interests of concentrated wealth & power....yeah, maybe they can be part of the solution, but...
OK, sorry for the rant.

Great points Hammer and Alien.
It's not switching off the intention to opinionate which is the problem, afterall that is what freedom of thought requires. It's the intention to please a mass publisher which needs addressing, as Alien suggests hold the last say on what and ultimately, how it gets published. In the end it narrows down to one person, if not, a small group of people telling millions of readers/listeners how it is. So, yes by all means be a reporter of truth and fact - if you want to get labelled as a conspiracy theorist

Facts always appear in context, and the context can be chosen from a continuum as broad as the universe.
Now commonsense steps in and says yeah but the appropriate context is obvious to anybody with commonsense - forgetting to explore the origins of their commonsense.

commonsense = the undisputed belief of the majority

Yeah - always dispute - you'll never arrive, but you'll be on the right road.
My commonsense tells me I need to go drink now, see you guys a little farther down the road.