I mean in that case there is nobody engaged in journalism! You choose what you cover, and who you interview, and how much you spend hemming on a source's claims, etc etc etc.
It's a lot easier to think about journalism as the result of human output that is indeed biased towards certain ideas, and to then read from various things, look into things yourself, or reading things from outlets that you believe have your interests at heart.
Expecting one group to collect all the info and present a pro/con list is gonna be very hard, but if you just check out a handful of outfit's coverage on something you might get a good enough picture to apply some judgement.
The motte: nobody is perfectly neutral, so no journalism can be perfectly objective. (true)
The bailey: it is normal and reasonable for journalists to present a biased narrative without even attempting to find or mention relevant information that would contradict it. (false)
Objectivity is an ideal that, while impossible to perfectly achieve, can certainly be done better or worse, and is important for journalists to think about if they want the trust of the public.
I only really see this as a relevant objection if the "omitted" information is such that it distorts what is actually presented. Is that the accusation? Or are they "biased" because they didn't publish this next to a counterpoint about how wonderful internal combustion engines are?
Emotional manipulation by only presenting a view which aligns with your desired policy outcomes — but not the contrast, eg that ICEs enable modern farming — is classic propaganda technique.
I'd add manipulation by picking phrasing you want to though... Like "ICEs enable modern farming". Machines/vehicles are one of the things that enable modern farming, it's ICE that's currently the most common power source for them - but ICE is just one implementation of it and can be replaced.
Why does an investigative reporter need to tell me that fossil fuels can be used to operate a tractor? We knew that already. No investigation is required.
the actual secret is that this misguided line of reasoning is unfortunately abused by those who wish to suppress arbitrary journalism they dislike, or the concept of professional journalism in general, because as you say, such criticism would mean journalism doesn't actually exist
It's a lot easier to think about journalism as the result of human output that is indeed biased towards certain ideas, and to then read from various things, look into things yourself, or reading things from outlets that you believe have your interests at heart.
Expecting one group to collect all the info and present a pro/con list is gonna be very hard, but if you just check out a handful of outfit's coverage on something you might get a good enough picture to apply some judgement.