A couple of things that need clarifying here.
The simplistic notion of objectivity is dead — always has been, only ever applied to children. Real objectivity is like a star, something in the unreachable distance that one uses for guidance. Not that one deliberately chooses to obfuscate, but one acknowledges the possibility of unknown bias and error in everything — in this sense all knowledge is probabilistic.
The other thing is around freedom.
If freedom has any meaning, then it must result in exponentially expanding diversity, which comes with a demand for exponentially expanding tolerance of difference.
Freedom or liberty comes with the responsibility to take such reasonable actions as one can to mitigate significant risk to the life or liberty of all others, to whatever level of risk to self one is willing to tolerate.
We don’t need to like or desire such diversity, and if we value life and liberty we must accept it, and actively protect it; for if we fail to protect life and liberty anywhere, we are actively encouraging threats to our own life and liberty in the long term.
So for me, the role of the reporter is to be as objective as possible, acknowledging all the many levels of things that can interfere with that.
And having a fundamental respect for life and liberty (with all of the necessary consequences to that) is not partisanship, it is the highest possible ethical and moral code that any of us can adopt.