Abandoning the pretense of objectivity does not mean abandoning the journalist's most important obligation, which is factual accuracy. In fact, the practice of opinion journalism brings additional ethical obligations. These can be summarized in two words: intellectual honesty. Are you writing or saying what you really think? Have you tested it against the available counterarguments? Will you stand by an expressed principle in different situations, when it leads to an unpleasing conclusion? Are you open to new evidence or argument that might change your mind? Do you retain at least a tiny, healthy sliver of a doubt about the argument you choose to make?Has anyone who is paid to offer their opinions--any radio host, cable TV host, columnist, blogger, podcaster, or streetcorner wackjob asking for change in a paper cup--ever suffered any consequences for answering a disingenuous "Yes, yes, yes, yes, no," to the questions above? Would Kinsely like disingeuously answer "Yes, yes, yes, yes, no," to such questions about this very article?
In order: No. Yes.
So identify the real problem: We journalists would all be happy to stay with the objective model, but there appears to be no money in it. That's the problem. We wouldn't be willing to throw out a centuries-old ideal if the golden eggs were still plopping out. And we will all rediscover Objectivity exactly when it starts paying again.
