On background of some recent events - that regarding Jerusalem's status (the US step of moving their embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem) and the clash between IDF and Hamas and Palestinians in the border between Gaza and Israel, I noticed differences in coverage produced by variety of worldwide newspapers that seem to tell different stories and hence present a biased twisted reality towards this or that side of the parties involved. And it made me wonder:
How journalism's rationale to report of facts at all feasible if assuming plausibly that we can never bring facts as such but always interpretations? What philosophical tools are there for the purpose of accounting for the fundamental principles of journalism?
Given the comments posted below I have realized that the assumption as to impossibility of representing or describing facts as such might be a source of confusion and in either way can be disputed if not refuted when pointing to elementary kind of facts (e.g. dates). Even if I drop the assumption as I did in the title of the question, I yet remain with the wonder as to principles of journalism or of how may one bring facts to the readership without distortion and what extent of objectivity is possible? Regarding the concrete events that led me to ponder the philosophical basis of journalism - if there is no trouble to describe facts as such why there are non-negligible differences - at times gross and crucial, between various worldwide newspapers over the factual aspect of the events in question?...