caffeine writes:
You claim the criteria is publishing what they think the public want to hear. That may often be the case; but what if Joe Editor thinks the public mainly wants to hear about Muslim immigrants raping European women? Even if every word they print is the unvarnished truth; if they're hunting around for every case they can find of someone being raped by a Muslim immigrant then they are producing a biased picture of the world.
Who assumes that every single news agency is reporting everything that ever happens?
The expectation is that every news agency will produce a limited view of the world. What we also expect is that a news agency will accurately and fairly report on the news they do present. Bias becomes a problem when a news story is purposefully skewed to favor a certain political view.
In a way, we get the press we deserve. News agencies are not subsidized by independent pools of money, but are instead fueled by ad revenue that depends on eyeballs. Profit drives news, so news agencies will typically show news that will get the most eyeballs. At the same time, many journalists (I would say a vast majority) still have some integrity. While they know certain news stories can drive ad revenue, they still report on less popular news on the backs of the profit driven by other news stories.
Our press is a reflection of our culture. It is a formalized version of the town gossip. As long as our culture cherishes the truth then we will expect the truth from our press, and that is what we mean by bias.