Via Pajamas Media, here's John Leo on reportorial objectivity:

We now live in a docudrama world in which techniques of fiction and nonfiction are starting to blur. Many reporters think objectivity is a myth. They see journalism as inherently a subjective exercise in which the feelings and the will of the journalist function to reveal the truth of what has occurred. Two results are the emotional commitment to powerful but untrue story lines, and a further loss of credibility for the press.

If only they didn't care about the difference between fact and fiction and left it at that, it wouldn't be so bad. It's when they insist on the pretense of objectivity that I get hot and bothered. (Which is why I don't mind seeing fiction in the Globe, but mind seeing it in the BBC.)

There's something annoying about the "pretending to be objective" charade. I think it goes to the heart of the conflict between the MSM and bloggers, the old versus the new media. If they really were interested in things like truth and objectivity, they'd welcome legitimate corrections of their errors. But instead, by going into damage control mode and behaving as if bloggers are the enemy, they only highlight that they're pretending to be objective. And the more objective they pretend to be, the angrier they get when they're caught. If in fact the pretense is false, if the pretense is a "subjective exercise," then it is reasonable to expect that seemingly righteous anger would all be part of their act. But a lot of times it seems to me that there really is righteous anger.

Does that mean they actually believe in their own pretenses?

Yes, I think they really might.

If so, that's probably where the "emotional commitment to powerful but untrue story lines" comes into play.