It seems to me, if a journalist cannot bring objectivity to the debate, it hardly matters what ELSE he/she says or does correctly!
If they are not objective, then they make themselves part of the issue.
That doesn't work. It would be like using a camera with a cracked lens. Things become unnecessarily distorted and you have to guess what the reality IS.
Most journalists consider themselves to be “objective”. What most people consider “objectivity” means, “
people who think the same way that I do.”
What do you mean by objectivity, and how is it practiced?
This is why I prefer to concentrate on honesty and truth. They are easier to show as existing or not.