Liberty and News

I have started to read Liberty and News by Walter Lippman. It seems to me, at first glance, that Lippman is talking about how much the media deliver opinions rather than news and how much this was bad because people would simply tend to read newspapers and article that agreed with them. I however think that although newspapers certainly do serve partisanship rather than purely objective truth, this is more the case of big publications than it is of smallest independent ones. The sad thing is that they are probably less read than the big ones, but they are still a voice in the media society. I don't know if media are supposed to express the public opinion, and the opinion of their own group, to the risk that they might just create a cycle where no one changes his mind, or if they should constantly bring novelties, shake the population, and question everything... I guess that pure reality would make that very hard or even impossible for them, because even with the YU newspapers we can see how editors can be reluctant to publish something controversial or how one someone does not follow the mainstream he runs the risk of being labeled and stigmatized. I guess, however, that a rigorous seriousness is not attackable and that a few magazines such as the Foreign Affairs Magazine still manage to talk about everything without taking a side just because they are academic, analytical, rigorous and serious.... So maybe that is the solution, but then how many people have the patience to read the FA and don't at best skim through it to go back to a daily simpler newspaper?