I think the point was more that an institution like the times doesn't want to appear to be doing anything other than providing plain facts that don't lead people into thinking one way or the other about a given thing so that their reporting can be trusted as not being propaganda.

It's the difference between saying "stupid asshat Donald Trump, who's obviously a criminal, was found guilty of the fraud we all knew he did." And "A judge convicted Donald Trump of fraud." That's not propaganda, that's just stating plain facts that don't try to leave any impression on the reader which is important for trust.

You’re literally advocating for what is essentially approved propaganda. That you think there is an objectively correct bias terrifies me, and if you had sense, it would terrify you too.

No, there is no "correct bias". No bias is the goal. In fact, the goal is to be beyond even an appearance of bias. That's the only way you can be trustworthy. That's why the Times doesn't let their writers sign open letters. That's why they can't join lobbying orgs and don't give money to political candidates. These are just sacrifices you make if you want to be a hard news journalist. Same as having to watch what you say if you're a spokesperson or CEO, same with having to stay fit if you're a firefighter, same with a ton of jobs that have requirements that you may find unreasonable but are widely accepted because they're good for the job and the industry.

There is no such thing as objective truth, just perception and bias, and you truly believe it’s not okay to speak out against genocide?

You wanna talk about terrifying. This sentence is terrifying. No such thing as objective truth?! You've bought into the fake news, alternative facts propaganda being pushed for the last decade.

-Trump said x.

-Israel did Y.

-The president released a statement saying Z.

-A rocket exploded at a hospital in Gaza, it is unclear at the moment who fired it

-Here is an investigative report featuring video highlights, statements, and photos piecing together what likely happened in that rocket explosion

These are objective, unbiased facts. It obviously gets stickier when you start talking about what facts to report. Then you start talking about reporting on commentary on facts by people and orgs with clear biases themselves. Usually (or at least historically) journalists could cover their bases by finding both sides of an argument , and letting those players describe and clarify the facts themselves.

This is where the whole modern argument comes in over modern journalists giving too much weight to countervailing theories or crackpots in the interest of appearing unbiased. You may have heard it described as "both sides" reporting. For a long time, this was by far the best way to report facts, appear unbiased, and make sure everyone was heard and reported on. But recently there have been HUGE debates within journalism over how to report on say, climate change, when the vast vast majority of scientists say that it's happening, and it's man-made, and offer more and more conclusive studies supporting that. You can still find a few crackpots, but at what point are you choosing facts ("this crazy org said this about the new study") that themselves create a bias? Since climate change has been seen as a political issue for years, journalists have been worried about appearing unbiased, because a sniff of impropriety can drive people away from mainstream media and to the newer, very biased, lacking in ethics orgs. They started shifting away from this, and now people are both leaving unbiased news and those unbiased sources remaining are STILL getting hammered by media critics and commentators on the "both sides" narrative issues.

The point, though, is that people deeply care about and deeply debate this stuff on the margins. How do we best remain and appear unbiased? How do we best inform and explain current events? And then they debate this stuff at the margins because there are different opinions on it. But no one is saying news journalists should be able to sign petitions and open letters. It is so far outside of acceptable that I bet you could poll newsrooms at the Times, Post, Tribune and not get a single journalist who thinks going on public record about current events should be A-ok.

I hope the history books of the future describe the atrocities of the present, because clearly we can’t rely on the news.

If you're not aware of these very basic ethical and functional debates in journalism, that are covered and discussed ad nauseum in papers of every slant and those in the middle, my guess is you're just not consuming much news. It's impossible to miss this stuff. So I can't imagine you're going to pick up history books if you're missing this stuff as it's happening.