Looks like you’re using the liberals’ nonsequiturs. Reporting can indeed be objective; to say otherwise is to deny the existence of facts and objective truth. It isn’t about the government stepping in to assure objectivity; of course, when they do step in, they destroy what little objectivity may be gleaned from the “news” out there.
As far as the press credentials debacle, take note that the kritarchy that isn’t supposed to have power to jump in and protect “journalists” and create fake “rights” for them is indeed doing so.
No one can know that they are objective. You can try to be objective - an effort which would have to begin with the assumption that you are not objective, in order for you to take seriously the reasons why were you stand might depend on where you sit. You and even claim to be trying to be objective, if in fact you are making a good-faith effort. But to claim actually to be objective is to reveal your own subjectivity in all its “splendor.”An example of someone seriously trying to be objective was when Antonin Scalia remarked that whenever he found himself liking a decision too much, he would go back and reexamine his logic, looking for his own subjectivity corrupting the logic of his ruling.
A contrary example would be just about any journalist, claiming that “all journalists are objective” (including himself) - all the while knowing that as long as “if it bleeds, it leads” remains true, journalism will always be negative. Only a cynic could assert that “negativity is objectivity.”