Discussion came up on the Freedom must be saved post and probably deserves it's own thread.
In my opinion, some journalists can be and others can't - it's also worth remembering that most journalists couldn't give a shit about the anarchist movement and don't report on anything connected with protests or social movements.
Fair play, just C&Ping from the old one:
Nope, first five years of my career was at a regional paper with a right-wing bias (I ended up leaving before I was pushed, but over my union activities, not my treatment of content). And I work for Stalinists, hardly the anarchist movement's biggest fans (seriously, you should see some of the shit I've cleaned up accusing anarchists of this that and the other in the foreign pages particularly - and I've outright refused to work with some copy).
I can think of half a dozen (journalists who write political stuff - people employed specfically as political journalists are something else) off the top of my head and probably come up with a dozen if I think about it, in London alone. Including at least one Guardian writer. And I don't hang out in journalistic circles much.
Bear in mind I understand the pressures pretty well and agree with most of the structural criticisms of journalism - but again, understanding the factors which produce trends of untrustworthyness and bias in the industry is not the same thing as I was complaining about, which is the tarring of all journalists as being untrustworthy and parasitic individuals.
The former is a logical response, the latter is a knee-jerk generalisation which can lead to people like me being bounced out of the movement and/or being encouraged to fall into line with the rest of the industry (after all, what's the point in making an effort to work with anarchists and potentially fucking your own life up to move against the flow if your allies are constantly telling you you're scum?).