By all means, I think that journalists should continue to strive for objectivity. It is a wonderful ideal. But, like most ideals, those who come closest to following the spirit of it, are those who realize they may never perfectly follow the letter of it.

So let reporters be human. Let them tweet their own opinions and biases, and shed the robot-like detachment they take upon themselves at the workplace. Then let them go back to work, realizing that they are human, and have opinions, and then do their best to report only the truth anyway.

I would also argue that objective reporting, when done right, does not have to hamstring reporters. Instead, objectivity hand-in-hand with the dedicated journalists digging below the surface, can create a journalism that is both ruthless and defendable. And while it isn’t perfect, at least its attempting to be.

But if opinion – good or toxic – is theoretically beside the point, shouldn’t a truly worthwhile outlet be able to do without it entirely?

Perhaps, but assume for a moment that reporters aren’t necessarily commercial shills or partisan hacks with devious agendas, and trust that many actually see in life a level of irreducible complexity that eludes easy answers, and demands multiple perspectives.

Then consider the possibility that political bias (which we all share to an extent) can be far less influential than other characteristics of viewpoint (e.g. being basically Assertive or Inquisitive.)

Continue by asking yourself “who is likely to provide me with a more complete, accurate, and reliable set of facts? A reporter who I happen to disagree with politically, but whose opinions I’ve seen evolving? Or one who shares my sentiments, but whose rigidity of thought suggests they only see what they want to see?”

The answer should be obvious. The problem comes from news organizations that make a policy of stripping any signs that help you distinguish between the work of one and the work of the other.

A useful news organization would focus on cultivating a smarter and more open-minded staff, encouraging its members to challenge firm but inaccurate pre-conceptions in cases where they can do more harm than good (e.g. “Housing won’t go on appreciating forever, here’s why Wall St. wants you to think it will, and here’s what your legislators have to say about all this.”)

Instead, shops like CNN seem hell-bent on dumbing down their viewers by stripping their stories of anything about which reasonable people could disagree, or that distracted people could misunderstand. Then they fire people whose public opinions imply that constant oversimplification is a greater hazard than genuine complexity, and that frictionless access is more important that uncomfortable truth.

Happily for the rest of us, their cratering ratings suggest they’ve chosen badly. Still, it’s a shame. Once upon a time, they could have been great. And useful.