The goal of science is for experiments to be repeatable. If I were to build a copy of the LHC under my house, presumably I would be able to verify any of CERN's results.

But I can't verify anything in journalism. If two reporters watched something happen and their accounts differ, who is right? No one knows, and both will be accused of bias.

Is water wet?

Maybe!

The point being that there are plenty of journalistic enterprises that are not especially sensitive to bias.

Funnily enough, by at least one scientific definition of wet, water is very, very not wet. Water has an extremely low wettability, and in fact will even wet most other liquids.

I always find that phrase when used as an example of common sense funny in that regard.

Yes when they are void of anything to do with journalism (Plane goes down)

The second you add journalism to the mix you are getting into bias land no matter how you turn it around.

I think when you say 'journalism' what you mean 'analysis' vs 'reportage'.

No,

"Journalism is the production and distribution of reports on the interaction of events, facts, ideas, and people that are the "news of the day" and that impacts society to at least some degree. The word applies to the occupation (professional or not), the methods of gathering information, and the organizing literary styles. Journalistic media include: print, television, radio, Internet, and, in the past, newsreels."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism

This seems at odds with your earlier statement: Yes when they are void of anything to do with journalism (Plane goes down)

I can't really figure out what point you're trying to make but that's OK, doubtless it will be clearer in some other context.

With journalism (and propaganda) truth and falsehood are not as important as what you leave in and what you leave out and how you present it.

When it comes to propaganda it is always better to deceive people with truth than with lies because lies can be disproven. The art lies in framing snippets of truth in the correct way, leaving larger truths out, to achieve your desired goal of perception manipulation.

Objective journalism can be just as powerful as a tool of deception as it is as a tool of enlightenment.

There is no such thing as objective journalism.

Because then it's not journalism.

"Plane goes down" is to some extent objectively true (disregarding philosophy for a while here) but reporting on it becomes highly subjective as the journalist in order to add more than the basic observation will be biased on what they choose to describe the event.

If that was so, there wouldn't be such a thing as the replication crisis.

Some scientific fields, math and physics, are pretty objective , but those that have been wide political interests or have fallen to post-modernism do not.

Saying they have fallen to postmodernism implies that that is somehow wrong. I think a more precise interpretation is that we live in a post-modern world where there is no objective truth and that this rubs a lot of people the wrong way because they don't want it to be a question of interpretation.

The good news is that we don't need objective truth to establish solid models.

Peer-reviewed science is targeted at other scientists. Journalism is targeted at the general public, who (accepting the premise of the GP) don't care.