"I'm a little concerned about this notion everybody wants us to be objective," Jennings said. Jennings said that everyone — even journalists — have points of view through which they filter their perception of the news. It could be race, sex or income. But, he said, reporters are ideally trained to be as objective as possible. "And when we don't think we can be fully objective, to be fair."

I think there’s this cult of objectivity in the U.S. about media. There are two sides to every story, but it’s not always objective that one side has as much right to narrate a story. I think it’s distorting to always impose that 50-50 impulse on everything you cover because otherwise you’ll be branded as “liberal” or “having an agenda.” Life is not 50-50…

I think there is a question of reviewing how we do journalism, for example, the focus on balance and simply presenting the facts has not really helped the current political environment. It is not just enough to present both sides anymore.So trust is not necessarily always about not trusting the facts. But more on not trusting what each media represents.

there are more axes of difference beyond the Left-Right worth exploring, and in some ways, political journalism does not always acknowledge those.

You know my present occupation and why I am pursuing it. You know also that I always had a penchant for politics. But this interest has been weakened by journalism far more than it has found sustenance in it. I have to look at political news from a different point of view from that of the reader. The important thing for the reader is content. For me a news item has interest as an article filling a page. But the diminished enjoyment afforded by the satisfaction of my political curiosity has its compensations. In the first place, income. I have convinced myself by experience of the truth of the biblical text which I have made my guiding light: “Strive ye first after food and clothing, and the Kingdom of God will fall to you as well’’ [reversal of Matthew 6:33]. The second advantage is that a journalist is himself an object of curiosity and almost of envy, in that everybody wants to know what he is holding secretly [in petto]—which, according to the universal persuasion, is surely the best part. But just between us, I never know more than what appears in my newspaper, and often not even that much.

So much for Objective Journalism. Don't bother to look for it here — not under any byline of mine; or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.

What happened to factual, down-the-middle reporting? That’s hard to even define anymore, as the line between fact and fiction, between truth and lies, gets murkier every day. We can’t survive without a free press, dedicated to preserving that fine line and secure enough to follow the facts where they lead. But the current environment imposes serious pressures on our journalists, at least those who cover politics, to do just the reverse — to exercise their own power and to, in the words of one wise columnist, “abnormalize” all politicians, even honest, able ones, often because of relatively insignificant issues. Scholars call this false equivalency. It means that when you find a mountain to expose in one person or party, you have to pick a molehill on the other side and make it into a mountain to avoid being accused of bias. The built-up molehills also have large benefits: increased coverage on the evening news, millions of retweets, and more talk-show fodder. When the mountains and molehills all look the same, campaigns and governments devote too little time and energy debating the issues that matter most to our people. Even when we try to do that, we’re often drowned out by the passion of the day.

Journalism always takes a side, whether the journalist chooses to admit it or not.

Objective journalism is one of the main reasons American politics has been allowed to be so corrupt for so long. You can't be objective about Nixon.

Objectivity has been the lodestar for journalism for a long time, and there’s a lot of legitimate reasons that people wanted to have a feeling of fairness and neutrality in the journalism that they’re reading.

I think no matter what we cover, people tend to see what we cover through their own particular political or personal prisms. I always ask people to be specific what they're talking about. You can't cover the Middle East — you can't cover American politics — you can't cover America these days without finding people in one place or another taking exception to what we do. I think it goes with the territory. Keeps me, at least I hope, mindful, always that there's at least one other opinion and sometimes a dozen other opinions. And they all bear accounting for. But not everybody is right you know because somebody says, "well you did X", and you say "well, maybe X is right in some cases".

Journalism is the one thing that protects us. There's a history of crusading, let–the–chips–fall–where–they–may journalists. But that's given way to 'advocacy journalists,' who have left– or right–wing biases. That doesn't make sense. The only thing a journalist should worship is the truth.

This whole “both sides” needs of journalists, it’s so outside the parameters, or even the metaphysics, of satire. I’m not here to present both sides. I’m here to make an argument. It also gets to the whole idea of punching the downtrodden, you know? It’s like, “Let’s try to understand why the person in power is supporting policies that are disenfranchising entire communities. Let’s try and see their point of view — for our satire.” No, actually, we don’t need to do that for our satire.

Whatever analogy we choose, one thing is clear - any group with influence needs people outside that group who will criticise it. In the real world of politics and society, journalists do that - proper journalists who know what having principles means, who aim for objectivity while accepting that it is unattainable, and who are open about who pays them and who they work with.