>but in the marketplace it has beaten a performance of impartiality

of course it does, the entire logic of market driven news is to cater to the attention and emotionality of a self-selected audience. Journalism cannot compete with that and still perform its function. When someone subscribes to a substack for 10$ they're not going there for facts or because the author is the equivalent of Plato, they're going there because they're sold a quasi-relationship. It's effectively Onlyfans for news.

A journalist at the WSJ say obviously has biases, but there is real impartiality both as an ideal and in practice. John Carreyrou who worked there brought Theranos down, despite Rupert Murdoch being heavily invested in the firm. (and I don't think Rupert Murdoch is the model of an ethical citizen).

'Alternative news', be it left, right, top, bottom or what have you would never do this. For one they don't engage in investigative journalism, but they also couldn't if the subject were the people their audience adores. And given that young people have been taught that the purpose of media is entertainment and gratification, you can't sell them critical analysis or factual information.