Biased journalism: With targeted media, does it make more money?

Objectivity, according to Wikipedia, is "a significant principle of journalistic professionalism." One possible reason that objectivity is so common is that it helped a newspaper make a profit by selling ads to the widest number of advertisers: "Publishers did not want to offend any potential advertising customers and therefore encouraged news editors and reporters to strive to present all sides of an issue," Wikipedia notes, citing Gerald Baldasty.

But today, advertisers' desire to reach more and more targeted audiences might reverse this trend. For instance, Newsmax.com is a major conservative news source online. And being conservative appears to play a key role in its business model.

Here's how The Palm Beach Post describes it:

'Meanwhile, much of [owner Chris Ruddy's] profits don't come from journalism at all. Ruddy says about 20 percent of the 100,000 subscribers to his magazine are millionaires, and so are some of the 1.8 million people whose e-mail addresses he has.

"Our demographic is very high-end, affluent, well-educated ... rich Republicans," he says.

Newsmax takes fees from financial services companies and health concerns, to send business offers to its readers through the e-mail lists.

"I'm first of all a businessman," he says. "The key to success is to find out who your readers are and build a database. We are more into financial news and health news that will appeal to a clientele that also likes politics." '

Newsmax is targeting not just the news it covers but also the slant of the coverage to reach a specific demographic. Without the huge fixed costs (e.g. owning a printing press) reaching a huge audience is no longer a necessity to be sustainable.

I think this trend is going to put more focus on the other supposed benefits of objectivity, such as trustworthiness and reliability. If given a choice, will people prefer objective news over news from a viewpoint they agree with?