I feel as if I didn't explain myself clearly. I didn't intentionally create a strawman, though it's obvious, with hindsight, that I did. I can't really point out any flaws in the wish for objectivity. Ironically, I feel like there is no objectively better way to display the news (as a collection of facts, or as a story-like report). I guess it just depends on what you want out of the news. I want a bunch of different view points to see the feelings of everyone involved. I assume (a great way to put one's foot in one's mouth, I know) that you want to know what happened, and draw your own conclusions from there.
As to the science thing(s). I know the number of debates doesn't prove how much of a subject is objectively correct (or not), but I do feel like it's an indicator. The fact that people can debate over this (Einstein vs Quantum Mechanics) just shows how much science is based on faith over certain principles. Anything you must have faith in (you know/believe to be true, but can't prove) is subjective, according to the definition I'm using, which may be different from yours, which defines objectivity as anything that is unarguably proven, aka factual. This does include things other then bias, such as lack of information, and the reliability of human perception. So a collection of facts, example I lived today and have not died at the time this writing, would fall into this category.
So, using this definition, which is probably more akin to proof vs faith, science wouldn't be objective because it must rely on things that we know to be true, but can't prove, without self-referencing ourselves. I believe this was proven by a mathematician surnamed Goden, though I may be mistaken. I would love to hear your thoughts on this, though I have meandered quite bit from our original debate.