"Journalists and the public often tend to identify objectivity in its
absence. Few journalists would make a claim to total neutrality or
impartiality. However, most strive toward a certain modicum of
detachment from their own personal biases in their news work. In
Discovering the News (1978), sociologist Michael Schudson argues that
"the belief in objectivity is a faith in 'facts,' a distrust in
'values,' and a commitment to their segregation." In the United
States, an objective story is typically considered to be one that
steers a middle path between two poles of political rhetoric. The
tenets of objectivity are violated to the degree to which the story
appears to favor one pole over the other.

According to some, it refers to the prevailing ideology of
newsgathering and reporting that emphasizes eyewitness accounts of
events, corroboration of facts with multiple sources and "balance." It
also implies an institutional role for journalists as a fourth estate,
a body that exists apart from government and large interest groups.
[citation needed]

Others hold it should mean reporting things without bias, as if one
just came to Earth from another planet and had no preconceived
opinions about our behavior or ways. This form of journalism is rarely
practiced, although some argue it would lead to radical changes in
reporting. (See, for example, Noam Chomsky, and The Journalist from
Mars).

Still others hold it to mean that journalists should have something
like a neutral point of view, not taking a stand on any issues on
which there is some disagreement. Instead, journalists are simply to
report "both sides" of an issue. Some even extend this standard to the
journalist's personal life, prohibiting them from getting involved in
political activities, which necessarily requires taking a stand. For
example, Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie, Jr. has
stated that the Post maintains a code of ethics that forbids reporters
and editors from all "political activities" except voting. Downie
himself goes even further and "decided to stop voting when [he] became
the ultimate gatekeeper for what is published in the newspaper" [1].

Criticisms
Advocacy journalists and civic journalists criticize this last
understanding of objectivity, arguing that it does a disservice to the
public because it fails to attempt to find the truth.[citation needed]
They also argue that such objectivity is nearly impossible to apply in
practice — newspapers inevitably take a point of view in deciding what
stories to cover, which to feature on the front page, and what sources
they quote. Media critics such as Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky
(1988) have described a propaganda model that they use to show how in
practice such a notion of objectivity ends up heavily favoring the
viewpoint of government and powerful corporations.

Another example of an objection to objectivity, according to
communication scholar David Mindich (Just the Facts: How "Objectivity"
Came to Define American Journalism, 1998), was the coverage that the
major papers (most notably the New York Times) gave to the lynching of
thousands of African Americans during the 1890s. News stories of the
period often described with detachment the hanging, immolation and
mutilation of men, women and children by mobs. Under the regimen of
objectivity, news writers often attempted to balance these accounts by
recounting the alleged transgressions of the victims that provoked the
lynch mobs to fury. David Mindich argues that this may have had the
effect of normalizing the practice of lynching.

Alternatives
Some argue that a more appropriate standard should be fairness and
accuracy (as enshrined in the names of groups like Fairness and
Accuracy in Reporting). Under this standard, taking sides on an issue
would be permitted as long as the side taken was accurate and the
other side was given a fair chance to respond. Many professionals
believe that true objectivity in journalism is not possible and
reporters must seek balance in their stories (giving all sides their
respective points of view), which fosters fairness.

Notable departures from objective news work include the muckraking of
Ida Tarbell and Lincoln Steffens, the New Journalism of Tom Wolfe and
Hunter S. Thompson, the underground press of the 1960s, and public
journalism.

History
The term objectivity was not applied to journalistic work until the
20th century, but it had fully emerged as a guiding principle by the
1890s. A number of communication scholars and historians agree that
the idea of "objectivity" has prevailed as a dominant discourse among
journalists in the United States since the appearance of modern
newspapers in the Jacksonian Era of the 1830s. The rise of objectivity
in journalistic method is also rooted in the scientific positivism of
the 19th century, as professional journalism of the late 19th century
borrowed parts of its worldview from various scientific disciplines of
the day.

Some historians, like Gerald Baldasty, have observed that
"objectivity" went hand in hand with the need to make profits in the
newspaper business by selling advertising. Publishers did not want to
offend any potential advertising customers and therefore encouraged
news editors and reporters to strive to present all sides of an issue.
In a similar vein, the rise of wire services and other cooperative
arrangements forced journalists to produce more "middle of the road"
stories that would be acceptable to newspapers of a variety of
political persuasions.

Ben H. Bagdikian, especially in his book "The Media Monopoly," (1983)
writes critically about the consequences of the rise of "objective
journalism." (One sample can be found in an online excerpt: "Democracy
and the Media" [2].")

Others have proposed a political explanation for the rise of
objectivity, which occurred earlier in the United States than most
other countries; scholars like Richard Kaplan have argued that
political parties needed to lose their hold over the loyalties of
voters and the institutions of government before the press could feel
free to offer a nonpartisan, "impartial" account of news events. This
change occurred following the critical election of 1896 and the
subsequent Progressive reform era."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%%28journalism%%29