Can we ever be objective?

As a journalist, allow me to say with total objectivity that journalists are some of the least objective people you'll ever meet.\nAfter all, we have to be, don't we? Journalism -- the best journalism, the ground-breaking Woodward and Bernstein bringing-down-the-White House kind of journalism -- is pro-active, not complicit. It is competitive. It requires an infinite number of decisions and judgment calls. No prisoners are taken. \nWe are given leads, tips and gossip, which we must decipher and theorize. We notice numbers that don't add up; then we work on the correct formula. We uncover connections between seemingly unconnected events; then we link the dots. We seek the evidence for our hypotheses, and if none materialize, we move on.\nFind me a journalist who doesn't bring some kind of baggage into a newsroom -- a political journalist void of political opinions, a sports writer who doesn't secretly root, root, root for the home team, an entertainment reporter who doesn't have a favorite actor or actress, and has never put a favorite band's album on repeat -- and I'll show you the blandest, most impersonal news-writing dud you'll ever meet (that, or I'll show you a liar).\nYet objectivity has always been and will continue to be the noblest impossible goal of journalism. \nThe relentless pursuit of pure objectivity, or at the very least the illusion of such a thing, often puts journalists in a dichotomous situation. We're taught to be inquiring but neutral, effective but detached, discerning but anesthetized, edgy but fair. For these convoluted reasons, journalists are sometimes hypersensitive to ethical problems. This is what frequently puts us on the defensive.\nWhile biases undoubtedly come from opinions, it does not necessarily follow that having an opinion equals having a bias. I'm not someone who believes it is possible for a journalist to flush himself of opinions before showing up for work every day, but I am someone who believes it is possible to set aside opinions when they need to be set aside.\nI'm not out to eviscerate the desire for objective journalism, but I would like to suggest maybe there's a better way of judging what's objective. Journalists themselves must be honest and acknowledge their jobs are more subjective and less detached than the word objectivity infers.\nNo doubt it'd be simpler to pretend we didn't have opinions than to disclose them. Some might fear it makes journalists less credible, but I'd argue if objectivity is our idyllic pursuit, then journalists should be objective about themselves and air out all their laundry for their readers to use to judge them. The judgment that matters is not the judgment of fellow journalists, but of the public. Not disclosing our opinions, or foolishly pretending we don't have any, truly should be the most real threat to our credibility.\nIt is not only about journalists being objective; it is also about readers being objective. The embrace of what we read can potentially make us passive, and possibly hoodwinked, recipients of the news. \nIn this, I'm asking you to trust a political journalist despite his or her political opinions. As far as I'm concerned, it is the better and much more honest way to judge a journalist. I'm confident that journalists are able to do an adequate job of preventing their opinions from becoming a bias, and if you think otherwise, tell 'em -- journalists aren't afraid of criticism, and more often than not, take it more seriously than you think.\nIf journalism wants the best, the brightest and the most inquiring, we have to concede that the best, the brightest and the most inquiring have opinions -- and that they know the right time and the right place to express them.