Those calling for news reporters to abandon objectivity might not be a majority, but they are persistent.

On Twitter this week I saw someone questioning why the news media would cover a trucker convoy causing traffic problems around the country as a means of protesting COVID-19 restrictions.

Another responded condescendingly that it was due to the media’s habit of covering “both sides.”

Covering “both sides” of an issue, objectivity, balance — they’re all basically the same thing and fundamental to good news reporting. It’s silly to suggest they’re no longer needed, even if you don’t like the trucker convoy.

The argument, as it goes, centers on the idea that there aren’t always two valid sides to a story, or at least two equally weighted sides.

This is of course true — but that’s not what it means to be journalistically objective.

The idea of journalistic objectivity was promoted by Walter Lippman, one of the most influential American media types of the 20th century, who called for reporters to use the scientific method to test information in order to give readers the truth, not a reporter’s version of the truth.

Lippman’s call was a departure from the sensational yellow journalism of a prior generation, and objectivity was certainly the higher professional standard.

Of course, no one is without bias. We all have our experiences, our opinions and our influences. For reporters, even deciding what to cover and what not to cover can be based on a bias.

But that’s why a scientific approach is so important. Reporters can have opinions and still be skeptics, especially of people in power, while also being capable of accurately reporting on an issue.

Some critics, like Los Angeles Times opinion columnist Jackie Calmes, put it in partisan terms. She argued last year that journalists should not treat Republicans “like they’re on the level.”

To Calmes, Republicans are simply in office to block progress sought by Democrats. And she has many legitimate complaints about Republicans in Congress and about the corrosive presence of former President Donald Trump. But Trump’s erosion of norms shouldn’t excuse the same from reporters — that’s simply a race to the bottom.

Calmes argues that Democrats can’t “count on a single Republican vote for most legislation, while one Republican senator can routinely block action with a filibuster,” and therefore journalists shouldn’t take the GOP seriously.

It’s not even factual to say “one Republican senator can routinely block action with a filibuster,” though that’s beside the point. Calmes automatically assumes that whatever Democrats are trying to do is the correct action and therefore Republicans are wrong (unless they agree with Democrats) — a view she writes she’s had since at least the 1990s.

Calmes adds that when Democratic moderates block the same Democratic agenda Republicans are blocking — for instance, when Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona work to block progressive proposals — that’s merely the “normal debate process.”

The framing Calmes is calling for is just partisan propaganda.

Other times, the truth seems obvious and the public demands justice. During the summer of 2020, when protests broke out after George Floyd was murdered by a police officer, Mary Retta, opining in B**** Media, wrote that “mainstream reporting in the aftermath of Floyd’s death provides an instructive lens on the failed, harmful, and often racist ideology of ‘objective’ journalism.”

One of Retta’s main concerns was that too many news reporters failed to say Floyd was “murdered” by police in the immediate aftermath. The writer took exception with an AP tweet describing the cop who murdered George Floyd as the “Minneapolis cop who knelt on a man’s neck,” a phrase she wrote was “devoid of any subjective notions of racism or police brutality.”

On one hand, Retta has a point. The full AP tweet does not even mention that George Floyd died as a result of the encounter with police, which is an unbelievable omission that does in fact diminish the brutality of the incident. But as a matter of objectivity, “murder” is a legal term requiring premeditation, which the reporter could not factually support at that time.

Also, in the AP’s defense, the first sentence in the story is unambiguous: “The white Minneapolis police officer who pressed his knee into George Floyd’s neck as he begged for air was arrested Friday and charged with murder.”

Fortunately, George Floyd’s murderer was tried and found guilty and journalistic objectivity did not need to be sacrificed to get there.

With so many sources of information, ranging from truthful to tin-foil-hat crazy, it’s as important as ever for news reporters to maintain the highest standards.

Matt Fleming is a member of the Southern California News Group’s editorial board. Follow him on Twitter @FlemingWords