James Poniewozik of TIME magazine

Olbermann, you had to expect, was not going to care for being likened to regular Worst Person in the World O’Reilly. And he came back last night with a Special Comment that accused Koppel of  misrepresenting the pre-cable history of TV news, of offering a poor representation of "objectivity" and its importance, and of being a prime example of a problem in news—essentially, distorting truth in the interests of balance—that Olbermann and company are now seeking to correct.

Olbermann Jousts Koppel in Battle of High Horses – Tuned In – TIME.com

And all of life is not amenable to putting it on a “scale” where two opposing arguments balance things out.  To suggest that all of our political arguments are “equally valid” is absolute moralnonsense.  It’s a good example of complete relativism.  Bill Maher points out how MLK did not say “You know,  those segregationists,  they have a point”. 

Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite, he notes, while held up as pillars of neutrality today, are best remembered precisely for moments in which they made informed judgments: Murrow on Sen. Joseph McCarthy, Cronkite on Watergate and the Vietnam War.
Read more: http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/11/16/olbermann-jousts-koppel-in-battle-of-high-horses/#ixzz15SYc66HH

exactly.   The president did NOT like Cronkite’s “commentary”.  The networks caved to a variety of pressures regarding Murrow’s “communist sympathizing”.  All was not obvious,  particularly to the mainstream media.

what journalists and people who talk about them generally call "objectivity" is not actual objectivity, but something more like "neutrality" (often a false and labored one).
Read more: http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/11/16/olbermann-jousts-koppel-in-battle-of-high-horses/#ixzz15SYo2qeV

yeah,  that place where Fox claims to be but is horribly inept at modeling (because they don’t intend to model neutrality at all,  but simply to use words to insist that all of their “reporting” is strategically aimed at espousing a narrative that is command and control driven, by Murdoch and his media guy, Roger Ailes)

Objectivity does not mean having no opinion, taking no side or expressing no point of view. It means seeking, acknowledging and interpreting objective evidence, even when it conflicts with your preconceptions or with what you wish to be true. You can have subjective beliefs—because we all do—and yet subordinate them to objective evidence.
Read more: http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/11/16/olbermann-jousts-koppel-in-battle-of-high-horses/#ixzz15SYxyqZo

he begins to lose me here:

But in the end, the winner of an argument is not determined by whom you like best, whom you admire most, or whom you want to be right. It comes down to making a call based on the evidence. There should be a term for that, too. What do you say we call it objectivity?

Read more: http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/11/16/olbermann-jousts-koppel-in-battle-of-high-horses/#ixzz15SauFtey

If we’re going to make an effort to “take back” a term like “objectivity”,  then it needs to be a little more clearly distinguished from the language of its captors.  I felt it was ALMOST there when he started:  “making a call based on the evidence”….but the emphasis needs to be clearly on BASED -  not in leaving it open to the same old notion that the “evidence” always “speaks for itself”.  Cronkite and Murrow brought us more.  They shared with the American public what he thought should be taken away from this “evidence”.  The take-aways are not always “no brainers”,  especially when we have become convinced by other narratives.