"It was never objective" is similar to Scientific American apologists who say "science was always political."
> It has been a steadfast supporter of the status quo
Yes, but at one time, "status quo" didn't mean one party. It meant two, either of which might happen to be in power. You're correct that they didn't give much coverage to groups outside of that "mainstream."
> the ridiculous idea that there can be "objective" journalism.
There are degrees of seriousness in the approach to that ideal. You can go into the New York Times archives for the late 19th and early 20th centuries, to see what it looked like when it was taken seriously.
> It has been a steadfast supporter of the status quo
Yes, but at one time, "status quo" didn't mean one party. It meant two, either of which might happen to be in power. You're correct that they didn't give much coverage to groups outside of that "mainstream."
> the ridiculous idea that there can be "objective" journalism.
There are degrees of seriousness in the approach to that ideal. You can go into the New York Times archives for the late 19th and early 20th centuries, to see what it looked like when it was taken seriously.