I would suggest that like any business it exists to make money for its owners. But is there more to it? I stopped reading newspapers many years ago when something I was involved in was grossly misreported and I realized accuracy was not as important as writing articles the public would agree with.
It appears however that a few newspapers have an incentive to be accurate. The Financial Times is one, because people who read it care more about their money that about their egos. And the Washington Post has printed material that goes against that standard narrative. As has the British newspaper Guardian and possibly a few others. But the Internet has allowed individuals to publish without the need for a big financial donor. So in some cases they publish crap and in others they push for total accuracy. That is the route Tucker claims he has taken, abandoned the partisan stuff and just printed the truth. It also appears that Natalie and Clayton Morris with Redacted have taken that path. A lot of people find it difficult to take real news seriously if they have spent their life with the mainstream media which has its own peculiar narrative. It will make you think so if you don't have time for that, then keep away from it.
I think Chomsky's analysis of the media pretty much reflects what's happening. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=chomsky+media Manufacturing Consent [The Political Economy Of The Mass Media].pdf (PDFy mirror) https://archive.org/details/pdfy-NekqfnoWIEuYgdZl Manufacturing Consent Noam Chomsky and the Media (Documentary) 1080p https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...ring+consent++Chomsky+Herman++PDF&FORM=HDRSC4
