There is a level of this that is reasonable, which is that what is presented in the writing be factual and not sensationalized. I imagine The Dispatch believes

There is a level of this that is reasonable, which is that what is presented in the writing be factual and not sensationalized. I imagine The Dispatch believes they meet this bar (I have no idea, I just heard of them now). But there is a level of this that is impossible, which is avoiding prioritizing some aspects and not others. Merely choosing what to put in a headline vs first paragraph vs 5th paragraph is making a subjective decision about what is most important. Even more subjective is choice of words for complex phenomena that defy simple summary. For example, were the activities of last summer protests, or were they riots? Most people have an opinion on which word is a better fit, but there is no way to deny that both have a basis in objective fact. So, writers choose one or the other depending on their own biases and what they want to emphasize. Finally, there is the "file drawer" source of bias, which is simply not covering some things that you don't think are important. You're not lying or misinforming anyone, but you are making a subjective decision about what people should be thinking about. I personally think it's best if a publication is open about how it's going to be making these various subjective decisions. And I think it's dishonest for someone to claim their news reporting can be purely objective.