I really like this quote on Nate Silver and the journalistic clash between him and others at the New York Times (you know one of them had to be David Brooks)

This is what I like to describe as the difference between objectivity and "objectivity." Objectivity is the belief that there is a real world out there that's more or less knowable; the "objectivity" that journalists practice holds that it's impossible to know what's real, so all you can do is report the claims made by various (powerful) people. The chief benefit of "objectivity" is that it means you will never have to tell any powerful person that they're wrong about anything.

You can read the whole thing here. It's really a continuation of something I've ranted about before where most modern (American) media has found fertile ground in what I am calling a bias towards the center, or a kind of post-modern bias towards everything. The world is seen as competing talking points so you can say anything you want. Of course, this doesn't actually shine a light on anything - and contentions that something might be empirically false are a poison to that fertile ground.