The elegance of the First Amendment lies in its intent to exclude the government entirely from any role in deciding who is objective and who is not. Since nobody can know--let alone tell--all of the truth, and since "Half the truth can be a very big lie" (Churchill), absence of bias is an unprovable negative.And the examples of the BBC and our own NPR illustrate that government ownership is a long way from a guarantee of objectivity. Indeed if the government is the judge of who is objective, we know that it will define eternal incumbency as the de facto standard of "objectivity."
It is patent that government licensing/censorship actually creates broadcasting as we know it; without it there would be a free-for-all in which reception of a given broadcast would be at the mercy of those who might intentionally jam it. But is that worse in principle than the a priori censorship imposed by the government on all who wish to transmit but are forbidden by the licensing agency to do so?