Fear of Trump, and the threat he represents to a free press, probably has a lot of do with this. But you are right: they need to strive to be objective.
If a politician says that black is white, the headline "Politician: Black is White" is objective, but not accurate or true.
The reporter knows that black is not white, the editor knows that black is not white, heck the typesetter knows that black is not white. The politician obviously knows too--or at least they should. So the headline should read "Politician Lies About Black Being White." That's really what happened.
Once a upon a time, journalism viewed itself as a check against government--an institution dedicated to holding leaders responsible and accountable. Somewhere along the way the concept of "objectivity" turned them into mere stenographers for the powerful.
Journalists must adapt to the reality that information is not scarce anymore. If people want to know what Trump said on Twitter, they can follow him on Twitter! It's free and just as easy as loading up a news website. So news outlets don't need to just repost what Trump said.
They need to do reporting (and write headlines) that provide accurate context and tell their readers the truth about what Trump said.
[0] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands...
No, I don't think this is true. "Truth" may not be neutral, depending on who your favorite philosopher is, but facts are neutral.
Yes, journalists need to adapt to a reality where information isn't scarce, but throwing away all semblance of objectivity is exactly the wrong way to do it. That doesn't mean they just report what people say (which is more laziness than any attempt at objectivity). It means they dig into political scandals for both parties in an evenhanded manner. If as a consumer of news I can't trust them to report the facts, they are entirely unfit for purpose.