... saw the writing on the wall. He perceived correctly that there could be no victory in Vietnam.

Did he ever stop to wonder if victory or defeat might be irrelevant to the people who profit from the firing of the weapons and the deployment of the troops, and even from their deaths (oh yes, lots of paperwork, lots of logistics, lots of expensive supplies needed, when it comes to shipping the parts home to mom and dad), and from the re-supply and rebuild that comes after the fighting is over?

Victory or defeat in Vietnam only mattered to those whose political careers might be damaged by an open admission of failure. That is why, for example, everyone with a vested political interest talks about withdrawal "with honour" ... that honour doesn't have to be real, but it must at least be superfically plausible. Until the President and his crew think they can get out with their reputations intact, the killing and the profiteering will continue. It is the same today as it was 41 years ago. Same bullshit reasons for starting, same bullshit reasons for not getting out, even after the first load of bullshit has been thoroughly exposed.

(And of it destroys the constitutional basis of government in the USA, that is just a bonus.)

It doesn't matter who dies, it doesn't matter what it costs the country, it doesn't matter what the long term geopolitical damage will be - and all of these will be hellishly expensive - no, what matters is that the powerful are not to be embarrassed. That's what the napalm was all about.

That's why Vietnam lasted 7 years after a so-so ho-hum thoroughly compromised establishment journalist openly recognised that it would never be won.

How long will we let Iraqi people die for the profit margins and political careers of the same people?

How long will we let Afghani people die for the same reasons?

How long will Pakistani people suffer and die for the same reasons?

How long?

A stenographer is objective in a strictly mechanical way: someone's words are accurately captured, providing a reliable transcript for future reference and research.

This isn't journalism, except of a truly basic kind (i.e., court reporters). But it is important grunt work that provides others with critical raw material: politicians, reporters, historians, analysts and comedians all depend on access to dependable accounts of who said what.

The White House Press Corps, in short, is giving an elementary but significant service a bad name.

Honest neutrality, in the sense of attempting an unwavering equal treatment of two sides of an issue, is another form of objectivity, one more complicated than simply capturing the words of others. While it isn't the last word in journalism, it is a step beyond repetition: a neutral commentator or observer tries, as best they can, to present each side of an argument fairly, i.e., framed as strongly as the best advocates for that side can manage. This is the best way to proceed even when the journalist ends in taking sides. (A scientist wanting to argue for a novel interpretation of data must first refute the strongest possible case for the conventional reading.) Beating up straw men may be good exercise. It's just not a very convincing trial by combat, or good journalistic practice.

But truly even-sided presentations also have their place. Particularly where complex legal or technical matters are concerned, this can be a real public service (and many who comment here do this very well). Journalists don't always need to weigh in on one side of a debate to contribute to the process that we hope leads to the discovery or revelation of the truth.

Ultimately, though, a sophisticated and serious journalist's responsibilities transcend objectivity and neutrality. Whether you think getting at the truth fully defines a journalist's responsibility - "finding and reporting the truth is the only job of a journalist",RMP - or you believe it's the initial goal - "Journalism's first obligation is to the truth", "Elements of Journalism", cited by NeilSagan - the journalist of the highest order has to do more than accurately present the literal words of others or fairly capture alternative views in an ongoing controversy.

He or she must make an original contribution to a meaningful public debate by adding to our common store of truth. This is in keeping with these "Elements of Journalism":

2. Its first loyalty is to citizens.

3. Its essence is a discipline of verification.

Independence from sources, freedom of conscience, a lively style, attention to detail and a sense of proportion - all these are key elements, too, at getting at truths that matter and resonate, that have a chance of actually making a difference in people's lives.

"Objectivity" and "neutrality", like many other critically useful concepts, have been co-opted and corrupted by a mainstream celebrity journalism full of children playing in adult's clothing, shirking their full measure of professional responsibility. Mainstream celebrity journalism aims to trivialize discussion of matters of fact or policy, by reducing a once-honored profession to an unholy amalgam of court reporting, reading out loud and soapbox oratory.

By doing so, it disguises the real effort required to get at what's really going on in a complex world full of fallible people intent on presenting their own self-serving versions of the truth.

That doesn't make objectivity a quaint or obsolete value. Nor is objectivity some ultimate state the ideal journalist can perfectly achieve, or the be-all and end-all of the journalistic craft.

As RMP says, the perfectly objective reporter doesn't exist, and those loudest to trumpet their "objectivity" are the ones least to be relied on.

But some journalists are better than others at getting at the untidy, inconvenient, much-disputed but devastating facts that in the end truly make a difference in public discourse, the ones that can change the course of an election or a country. That's one of the reasons why Glenn Greenwald or the late David Halberstam earn our respect, and Chuck Todd and Bill O'Reilly our contempt or derision.

Not because they describe those facts unemotionally - that sense of objectivity is better suited to robots than caring human beings - but because their emotions and consciences drive them to see what's really there with clear eyes and report their findings back to the rest of us.