Apologies if you've said elsewhere, but why is grounding journalistic objectivity in empiricism and reliable science a bad thing? Scientific objectivity is usually about transparency of conditions and peer measurability. Is it uniqueness of non-lab anecdotes & low access to measurable evidence?

That's a classical/traditional view of science. There are many people who now recognise that science itself is a socially constructed process that is always subjective and uncertain. We can't eliminate those things. We can try and account for them.

Because journalistic objectivity aligns well with a for-profit journalism. /only half sarcastic