The journalistic (0) IDEAL of pure objectivity, long held up as the profession's highest virtue, has come under increasing scrutiny. Critics from across the political argue that the very framing of a story — which sources are consulted, which questions are asked, which facts are worth mentioning — inevitably reflects the worldview of those producing it. Defenders of the traditional ideal counter that abandoning the of neutrality opens the door to undisguised partisanship, and that an imperfectly pursued standard is still preferable to none at all. Both camps have a point, which is perhaps why the debate shows no sign of down. A more nuanced position, advanced by media scholars in recent years, suggests that objectivity is best understood not as a destination but as a — a set of practices, including source diversification and adversarial editing, that the inevitable biases of individual reporters. On this view, the honest journalist is not the one who claims no perspective but the one who her perspective candidly and then subjects her reporting to the kind of scrutiny that might reveal its blind spots. Such humility is hard-won, and harder But it may represent the most credible defence of a profession whose traditional self-image can no longer bear the weight placed upon it.