For me, a non-journalist, who taught Pol. Sci at a Florida state U campus many years ago, and Pol. Sci and Econ in local colleges and NY State prisons not quite so long ago, I feel that the worst abuse of journalism is the attempt to “balance” coverage by reducing it to ‘he said vs he/she said’ with no attempt, probably because of no knowledge of the subject, to consider whether what ‘he said, she said’ is at all based on facts.
There are too few attempts to investigate the factual basis for political statements; too many blind dittoes of what someone said with no concern for truth or falsity.
This might get one accused of being a partisan, but really, how can the obstructionism of one party in Congress be simply explained away by their own lame explanations, and the reporters’ lame attempts to find equivalence in the other party, which attempts, at least, to govern?
Objectivity is not really possible: it’s much more honest to admit one’s own biases openly, while reporting on what you see and knowing what you know about it: like your admission that you are for Hillary.