A generation past, old journalists taught young journalists that there are always two sides to any issue, and showing both was necessary for 'objective' journalism. Which has been perverted into ensuring that relevant political factions get equal airtime (without regard to objectivity or relation to reality).
America would be better off with a more British adversarial partisan journalism which isn't objective and doesn't falsely claim to be. Adopting the regulatory standards from broadcast television news, where limited spectrum resulted in a limited number of stations practically inviting regulated monopolies, is almost accidental. It was purely a legacy of big semi-monopoly corporates borrowing a model from others in a related industry as they were bought out by private owners in a class private equity / corporate empire play.
Prior to the web, publishing meant actually manufacturing physical objects, using capital machinery, which was capital intensive, while providing content meant managing a lot of human capital, in an enterprise with enormous economies of scale. Quasi-monopolies were almost natural. But there was absolutely no reason 'print' journalism needs to follow that model today.
It's not by accident that the web keeps seeing new publishing platforms emerge--news groups, websites, blogs, microblogs, social media, short-form video. Technological improvement is part of the game, but so is that the fact that private capital keeps trying to achieve return on investment by using network effects to scale to ubiquity and then extract monopoly rents. (We also see billionaires buying platforms to silence critics and acquire vanity assets: see Twitter and the Washington Post). Hence, BlueSky--not just a clone of Twitter, but a competitor designed to be invulnerable to being bought out.
There are also the issues of censorship and content theft. Archive of Our Own (AO3) exists because LiveJournal purged sketchy content to make it more attractive to advertisers and hence investors. SubStack exists because blog traffic was being compromised by AI summaries of its best content.
Again, there is no need for print journalism to make any effort to be objective, as there can be an infinite array of journalism providers on the web. In which environment, journalism can be as radical as it likes--infinite speciation to fill infinite infinitesimal niches, optimized through evolutionary selection.
Rather than being objective, journalism should be informative. It should tell you something you didn't know before, even if it's only in a Jane-Austin-whose-daughter-has-married-whose-son sort of way. Good journalism will always be investigative, providing not just the facts, but the context necessary to understand implications of the facts. Really Good journalism is transformative - when new facts are used to demonstrate the limits of what someone previously thought they knew and create a new understanding that synthesizing both old and new understanding. Bad journalism is merely confirmatory - it affirms what you already knew is correct. Really Bad journalism is enabling delusion - reinforcing what you already know to be correct, even when that understanding is wrong.
Present diatribes against 'fake news' and 'woke culture' exists in direct response to the threat that exposure to Really Good Journalism presents to Really Bad Journalism using a 'purity culture' technique to quarantine information by labeling it or its source as 'bad' or 'shameful' or 'sinful'. (If you are seeing a parallel to people getting 'cancelled' it's not by accident - extremists at both ends of the political spectrum use exclusion and denial an boycott as a threat.
There is a delusion among major new outlets that they can avoid this by being objective, but that is a pursuit of false ideal and a financial dead-end. Nothing can ever be 'objective' enough to satisfy the zealots who are the partisan drill sergeants--their job is to find something wrong in order to find something they can use as a basis for discipline and punishment.
That most journalism is supported by advertisement is both tonic and poison. A tonic, because money doesn't have an ideology. And poison, because almost no one who buys advertising wants to be associated with a fringe position that might alienate potential buyers or induce a boycott.
Together, this suggests we'll see two forms of journalism: the apolitical (or at least unaligned) journalism about 'Topics' and facts about those topics, and the ever-more unhinged 'Narrative' journalism focused on emphasizing some facts and deprecating others in order to privilege a preferred political narrative. In neither form of journalism is 'objectivity' relevant. For Narrative journalism, it's fundamentally contrary to its purpose. And for 'Topics' journalism, no one is going to care about objectivity -- the watch you trust is the one that tells the time best. And perhaps this already exists today, and the real frission we are seeing is the interstice between the two. And as a human writing about things, your only real question is if you are writing something that is informative, investigative, transformative-- or confirmatory and enabling.