Most people I know don't mind reading a journalist that is open with their biases as long as that journalist is objective when it comes to facts. The problem in today's media is that biased journalists ignore facts or just outright lie when the facts don't jive with the narrative they are trying to push. Its one thing to report on a story and spin the facts in such a way that correlates with your perspective and entirely another thing to conceal facts or invent your own. Most legacy "journalism" has devolved into a toxic brew of woke hot takes and the uncritical, anonymous dissemination of intelligence agency assertions.
The Guardian was mentioned above, and is an excellent example of this. The Guardian never made much attempt to hide their social and political biases in the past, but it was still a widely respected and credible newspaper, even to those who didn't necessarily share the same perspectives. Unfortunately, The Guardian, like most other legacy news outlets, went off the rails at some point over the last 5 years. They stopped reporting the news, and starting inventing it. Anyone following their coverage of the Assange saga saw numerous examples of this such as the, "Manafort met Assange in the embassy" fairy tale (including details like what Manafort was wearing to make the lie extra convincing). The problem is, it never happened! Yet still, 4 years later, it sits on their website, no retraction, no correction. The credibility problem is real.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-hel...