Yet, in his piece, Bezos acknowledges an uncomfortable truth: People no longer trust the media, and for good reason. It appears he seeks to change that.

However, over my years watching and commenting on the once-vaunted Fourth Estate, I have argued that the issue is not that media outlets are biased but that they claim to be objective. It’s not the bias that is objectionable; it’s the lies.

The reality is that it is impossible for any journalist to be 100 percent unbiased in their reportage. However, they can try their best to mitigate the impact of their personal feelings on the news of the day. Nevertheless, everyone knows that media outlets are not objective.

But what if they stopped lying about it? How would this impact the American media landscape?

In his piece, Bezos noted that “Our profession is now the least trusted of all” and that “Something we are doing is clearly not working.”

Likewise with newspapers. We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose. Reality is an undefeated champion. It would be easy to blame others for our long and continuing fall in credibility (and, therefore, decline in impact), but a victim mentality will not help. Complaining is not a strategy. We must work harder to control what we can control to increase our credibility.

If the press dropped the pretense of objectivity and acknowledged their biases, it would fundamentally reshape how Americans consume information. It would have profound implications for the industry and the public.

If news outlets openly declared their political leanings, it might actually help them regain credibility among readers who distrust claims of neutrality. It would allow audiences to take into account the possible politics behind how news stories are reported. This transparency would improve trust because there would not be the sense that the outlet is trying to pull one over on them by pretending to be objective.

Jeff Bezos Weighs in on WaPo Endorsement Drama: 'Our Profession Is Now the Least Trusted of All'

One Crazy Easy Thing Jeff Bezos Could Do to Help Restore Media Credibility

This would also empower readers to be better informed and more media savvy. They would understand that each news outlet comes from a different perspective. It might prompt them to consciously look at all perspectives on a particular issue or story. On the other hand, it could also exacerbate the echo chamber effect, with people only consuming news that confirms their beliefs.

Throwing off the mask of objectivity would bring about a rise in hyper-targeted media companies catering to specific ideological niches. To some extent, this is already happening. You are currently reading this article on a news site that openly declares its conservative/libertarian leanings. At first glance, this might seem to be a negative. But, in reality, if all media outlets were honest about their perspectives, audiences might be more engaged in what is happening in the country and across the globe.

Honesty about bias would also create an environment in which news outlets are freer to compete for ideological influence rather than market share alone. It would magnify the battleground of ideas and narratives where organizations attempt to persuade the public to buy into their worldview without using a deceptive patina of objectivity to trick them into believing that they are getting “just the facts, ma’am.”

This would create a situation in which readers would have to proactively seek out multiple perspectives to ensure they have a full understanding of the issues, rather than just believing that their favorite outlets are simply giving it to them straight. It could make for better media literacy and reduce the impact of misinformation.

One drawback is the possibility that being honest about bias could worsen the polarization the nation is experiencing at the moment. The echo chamber effect could create an ecosystem in which people are rarely exposed to opposing views. This risk is always present. In fact, it is already happening even with outlets still pretending to be objective.

Nevertheless, the counterbalance would still exist in the minds of the public, who would understand that if they want to get all sides of an issue, they must consume a more diverse spread of media outlets.

By openly stating their biases, the press could indirectly encourage audiences to cross-reference stories across different perspectives. If consumers know that they’re getting a subjective take, they may begin to seek out contrasting viewpoints more often, creating a more engaged and discerning audience. This shift could make readers more skeptical, but in a constructive way, as they become accustomed to parsing out the facts amid ideological differences.

The benefit for conservatives is that those who lean to the right will have a better understanding of what their opposition is thinking. Even further, it could also aid in finding common ground with sensible folks on either side. One of the most pernicious problems with today’s media environment is that it is the fringe, extremist voices that get the microphone instead of those who don’t immediately assume that those who disagree with them are the devil.

It is also worth mentioning that recognizing bias doesn’t necessarily mean sacrificing credibility or accuracy. News outlets could use the transparency to develop higher standards within their frameworks, knowing that the expanded battlefield of ideas has created more competition in the political and cultural realms.

Such a trend would create a mixed bag of consequences, for sure. But overall, I believe it could be to our overall benefit. Moreover, the world I described is already taking shape, even with the press continuing to lie about objectivity. As media becomes even more democratized, lines have been drawn in the sand. What remains to be seen is how this will affect the nation going forward.