But yeah, it’s such a strange notion of objectivity. To me, being objective actually means being honestly subjective: presenting all the relevant facts — facts and knowledge that a reporter has gathered via, as you put it, studious intelligence and primary sources rather than by getting one quote from an interpreter on each “side” of the issue — as well as your best understanding of those facts.

Yes, that understanding/conclusion will show a point of view — but if you have been honest and thorough, that’s okay.

Much better to show that you thoroughly understand an issue and have a take on it than to continually serve up ignorant, meaningless trivia.

But of all the traditions of newspaper journalism that need to change, the objectivity obsession — especially in the context of political coverage — may be the most ingrained and toughest to dislodge.

This form of journalism totally removes from the reporter any responsibility for being informed.

Reporters need not study up on policy, because it’s only their job to transcribe what candidates say. They need learn just enough to formulate a question that will elicit an answer — it doesn’t even have to be a good question.

When reporters are free of the responsibility of having a discloseable point of view (let’s face, they all have a POV, even if they don’t disclose it), and are not responsible through better informing the public by bringing some studious intelligence to their reporting, then the only thing they can do is gab about trivial issues, or themselves.