Probably, but story selection is the most minimal way to bias one's reporting. Also, every organization has their chosen politics so is also likely that the person the editor pass the story onto is there because they agree.
The vast majority of this country has a distrust of the media (both TV and print) [1] and it's not because their reporting is high quality and evenhanded. In fact, given the partisan divide here (Independents and Republicans historically low trust, Democrats almost even with historic highs), I really think you should reconsider your knee-jerk dismissal. There aren't a lot of ways to square this circle if you eliminate all possibility of influence of partisan bias.
You'd have a point of there wasn't a reactionary movement against anything that was credentialed, or even against the concept of expertise. When you consider it that way, it really makes my point for me that you are just sounding off in the culture wars. It's your assertion that it's "not because their reporting is high quality or even handed" and it's not supported by anything save your "instinct".
Since mine is so clearly off-base that it deserves scare quotes and snark, what is your hypothesis why the center and the right trust the the media less than ever while the left trust it almost more than ever?
