Did you read the first part of my post? Your response is redundant.
I am one of those much maligned lawyers, but we lawyers learned a long time ago that we can never represent two conflicting interest fairly. When so-called journalist try to be unbiased by following some sort of "ethical" guidelines they are at worst a fraud and at best deluding themselves.
Attorneys do work in an attempt to be unbiased to two opposing sides all the time. Such attorneys are called "arbitrators" and "judges".
A journalist, like a judge, should not "represent" either side, but rather make an effort to ensure that both sides are heard fairly and accurately.
A high ideal which is unobtainable should not render that ideal useless, but inspirational.
One of the reasons we have the jury system in America, is we realize that even judges can biased.
Besides, your reference to judges and arbitrators is irrelevant because they only make a factual decision if both sides elect so by agreement. If there is no agreement, the matter goes to a jury. I doubt very much if McCain agrees with Obama about the New York Times.
Do you think the way the current media operates is the only system available? Our country would be much better of if the media would stop the facade of journalist neutrality. the current ethical standard at best permits fraud in their coverage. I would much rather we have a system where so called journalists admit they take sides and advocate for their person or party. At least then there would be some honesty.
You sound as if you are either a journalist or a student of journalism. If so, I am sure you have heard about the case of N.Y. Times v. Sullivan. Its the landmark case wich says that the press can not be held responsible for lies about public figures. This brings up the question: Why would a media outlet, which values its journalist integrity, ever sue for the right to lie?