I disagree with your premise that broadcast journalism is entertainment. My contention is that there has been a very serious communist/socialist core of believers in the U.S. since the 1930's who raised their children and grandchildren to be believers and who have recruited many others via the media and the schools/universities.
They are very intelligent and determined and committed, and they are not interested in entertainment except as they can use that medium to carry their propaganda, rather like a corporation doesn't carry about the entertainment in a show, only the ratings, the demographics of the ratings and their product placement.
These core communist/socialist believers are to the left what the Christians are to the right, the spiritual and religious focus from whom have derived all the planning for the last several generations to take over schools, universities, unions, politics, movies, news, entertainment to dispense their viewpoint and thus take over the country.
If you don't see this, I think you are missing the most serious threat to our Constitution and The American Way, and indeed, to Christianity as well.
Whoever spoke of disagreement over that point?My point is that we don't have to fight on that ground alone. That, in fact, although the usual suspects have the First Amendment squarely on their side (more firmly by far than we would like), that is applicable to print but not to broadcasting.
And that the affectation of objectivity--actually, the use of "objectivity" as a code-word for "Political Correctnes", aka socialism--is a false signal endemic to broadcast journalism. Theoretically at least, it's illegal to broadcast false signals over the regulated airwaves. That's only theoretical because the FCC is guilty of nonfeasance in not enforcing the prohibition against it.
My thesis commends to conservatives the concrete action of suing the FCC and its licensees who perpetrate the fraud of "objective journalism". Theoretically the case goes to SCotUS, where the defendants make an issue of the fact that Justice Thomas doesn't read the papers or tune in the news. Plaintiff replies that that makes Justice Thomas the only person who is not coopted by the flattery and derision of journalism.
Congress has sent a First Amendment political speech case to SCotUS in McCain-Feingold. Anti-regulation people would claim that Congress can't tell the broadcasters what to broadcast, and what to abstain from broadcasting. But if so, Congress can't tell you what you can and can't broadcast, FCC license or no.