To change the course of the subjectivity/objectivity/bias/Michael Moore/
and so forth discussion a bit:
If persuasion is seen as a subjective enterprise, then it seems to me no
journalistic effort can be anything other than subjective. Perhaps we
should just accept that journalism is subjective (and so is documentray
film making, in case you don't include it in your definition of journalism)
and get on to asking just what it is trying to persuade us to believe, why
and how. It seems to me the first persuasive action of journalists and other
storytellers who claim not to be recounting fiction is to persuade us that
we should believe their story. Think of how much of the way in which the story
is told is devoted to the goal of establishing and maintaining credibility.
Why do those folks on TV stand in the rain and cold just so the Capitol or
White House can be seen in the background? It's sure not to add any new
"factual" detail to the story (unless, of course, something unsusual transpires
while they are standing there, like the President jogging by with an
appropriate sound bite).