You may no particularly like the author's point of view -- but you looked carefully, you might have noticed it was placed in he "Perspective" section, which as the name implies, is dedicated to expressing what are commonly known as "points of view" -- otherwise known as "biases". Which, forming the very core of our cognitive processes as they do, are very far from flaws -- an in fact, when used properly, not just useful, but absolutely crucial to one's survival in this murky, deeply ambiguous and ambivalent world of ours.

And at least the author gave some supporting observations to back up their (clearly labeled as such) point of view. OTOH the sentence you're offering above provides no insights or justifications; it is, quite literally, a pure expletive.

Journalism should be objective.

Should it, now?

“So much for Objective Journalism. Don't bother to look for it here--not under any byline of mine; or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.”

-- Hunter S Thompson