At the least, the pursuit of objectivity has meant that news reporters and editors cannot engage in political activities. Even community-wide charity drives become suspect. I learned early on I couldn’t wear political buttons or put a bumper sticker on the car, much less participate in a protest line. The ethics policy at the Kansas City Star was famed for telling its personnel that the only organization where they could vote was their church. (And, presumably, public elections, although some journalists have argued even that would taint their professionalism.) To be honest, even though we Quakers never take a vote in our business sessions, I felt some relief to know that my church was taking public stands in my stead.
It’s not that we don’t have values or don’t believe that reforms are needed. Rather, it’s an awareness that to report all sides fairly, we need to have some distance from participating in the battle itself. We have to be able to report shortcomings even in the places where we feel most sympathetic.
Still, I’d like those who accuse journalists of bias to try living under such strictures themselves. Maybe they’d even see a bigger picture.
Jnana's Red Barn 
I say give up the “pursuit of objectivity.” It’s not working. The idea that an objective press is attainable is nonsense to begin with because people aren’t objective. We can try to be “more objective” but our biases will be exposed in the things we think are interesting or newsworthy.
My background is in journalism, as well, and I remember in college, and especially after I started working for a small daily newspaper in Central Virginia, the notion of neutrality, as it pertains to political affiliations etc., as an essential component of orientation. In other words, don’t put yourself in the position to have your bias questioned. It is a sensitive topic, where a person’s support and/or allegiances can create a myriad of issues and potentially compromise professionalism and objectivity. I specifically remember the bumper sticker issue. Nature of the work, I suppose.
Doesn’t the last sentence contradict the second paragraph? Then it comes down to what Henshaw says, above, that whatever catches your attention exposes your bias. If objectivity is the goal, it sounds like the most readily available source of good journalists would come from a pool of natural-born sociopaths: cabable of strict adherence to a professional code, knowing what other people feel and expect, but almost entirely divorced from emotional prompts themselves. I’d read their reports. When you pick up a paper now, a reader knows the stories before they begin reading.
You’re probably on the right track for the future. The Internet, at least, seems to be leading us toward voices we know and respect, warts and all.