Jeff Bezos’s decision last week not to have The Washington Post issue an endorsement in this year’s presidential election has been greeted with near-unanimous support. With the exceptions of journalists themselves and a few Democratic partisans, nearly everyone in public life has praised the Post’s owner for attempting—against all odds—to restore trust in his organization, and in the media in general, by reestablishing its “unbiased” bona fides. “Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election,” Bezos wrote in an op-ed published by his paper, “What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence.” Therefore, “[e]nding them is a principled decision.” “Hooray!” everyone shouted in response, almost in unison.

I agree with Bezos—and the rest of the world—that the business of journalism is in serious trouble and needs to rectify a great number of issues. I disagree with Bezos and the masses, however, on the nature of journalism’s problems and, by extension, on the nature of the applicable solutions. The problem is not that journalists are biased. Rather, the problem is that a great many of them—a majority of the mainstream press, to be sure—are dishonest and deceptive. The American people don’t distrust the members of the media because of their prejudices, in other words, but because they lie constantly about not having any.

When this nation was founded and its Constitution was written guaranteeing the rights of a “free press,” the “press” as we know it today did not exist. For the most part, “the press” was anyone who had something to say and who had access to a printing press. That’s it. “Newspapers” were mostly grubby, little, partisan rags, written and published by people with a particular perspective or a specific axe to grind. And that was fine. That was the press whose freedom the Founders believed was worthy of protection, worthy of inclusion in a list of man’s inalienable rights.

Beginning in the late 19th century, however, the press began to fashion itself a “profession” with all the attendant strictures and privileges.  The study of journalism as a profession began at the University of Missouri almost 150 years ago.  In 1912, Columbia University established the first graduate program in “professional” journalism.  In 1933, the “professionalization” process was completed with the establishment of the American Newspaper Guild.

In the years after World War II, American journalists—like their British cousins—sought to pat themselves on the back for a job well done covering the battlefronts and embraced “professionalism” wholeheartedly.  In 1947, the Commission on Freedom of the Press codified the “responsibilities” of journalists to their “clients” and demanded that attention be paid to their expertise and excellence.  The Commission’s report, “A Free and Responsible Press,” contained a section on proposals, the prelude to which read as follows:

As the example of many ventures in the communications industry shows, good practice in the interest of public enlightenment is good business as well. The agencies of mass communication are not serving static wants. Year by year they are building and transforming the interests of the public. They have an obligation to elevate rather than to degrade them.

The gist of the recommendations in this section of our report is that the press itself should assume the responsibility of providing the variety, quantity, and quality of information and discussion which the country needs. This seems to us largely a question of the way in which the press looks at itself. We suggest that the press look upon itself as performing a public service of a professional kind.

What this meant in practice was that “journalists” decided that they should be portrayed as the keeper of all that is good and holy in the transmission of information. They were the “professionals,” after all, the only people on earth capable of fairness, justice, and “elevating” rather than “degrading” the interests of the people. They then proceeded to do just that, to portray themselves as noble and just professionals who understood better than “non-professionals” could even imagine what information was and was not needed by the public.

Unfortunately, the standard of “unbiased” and objective reporting was never something the press could accomplish, even if it wanted to. And for the most part, its members never wanted to. They simply wanted to be treated as the arbiters of what should be considered relevant.

Julia Evetts, one of the world’s foremost experts on the history of professionalism, has noted that the second wave of professionalism, the wave that began in the late 18th century and covered “soft” professions like government administration and journalism, inspired what is known as the “pessimistic” interpretation of the professionalization effort. In this interpretation, professionalization came to be understood “as a process of market closure, monopoly control of work, and occupational dominance.” It was “intended to promote professional practitioners’ own occupational self-interests in terms of their salary, status, and power as well as the monopoly protection of an occupational jurisdiction.”

In short, the professionalization of journalism—and the standard of “objectivity” that came with it—was always a farce. It was never intended to create an army of unbiased, diligent reporters scouring the globe for truth and justice. Rather, it was meant to enable the feigning of that type of dedication in return for status and power.

To be fair, I have many friends who are journalists, and I like them and respect them very much.  But I like and respect them largely because they have earned my affection and admiration rather than having demanded them. They have earned them by being good at their jobs and by being honest about their biases.

More generally, many journalists working today are quite good and quite dedicated to their craft.  It is worth noting, though, that most of those see their work as just that, a “craft,” or an occupation.  They don’t insist that they alone should be the gatekeepers of “legitimate” information. They don’t substitute their own agendas for truth.

My advice to journalists? Contra Jeff Bezos, endorse whomever you want. Tell your readers who you are and what you believe. Don’t pretend to be something you’re not and can never be. Be biased. Be prejudiced. But be honest about it and be consistent in your efforts to tell important stories.