There certainly is objective reporting. That online outlets put more focus on editorials doesn't change that. I couldn't name a US example to be honest, but the classic profession of journalism goes to great length to ensure objectivity. Maybe don't call it objectivity and just detachment if that resonates more.

That is referred to as the "view from nowhere".

It is just a stylistic choice that, among other things, attempts to both sound authoritative and hide the speaker. More and more it just sounds pompous, dodgy and artificial to me.

Yes, because it gives the reader the opportunity to evaluate the information himself instead. I get that some people like to have a ready opinion, but it doesn't change the fact I prefer the style and think it more informative. Pompous and paternalistic is trying to explain the world to readers.

When I am choosing which information I show and how exactly it is framed, whether hints of opposing information existing are shown or not, it is still pretty easy to lead you to my opinion.

It is just less apparent that is is going on. When you know what my opinion is, then you was warned.

Detachment and objectivity are much different things. Detachment can create an illusion of objectivity under some conditions, but it is not the same at all.

Completely true if you are meticulous. But it stands in contrast to activist journalism and would already lead to much better results, even if it isn't the same.

This, one hundred times! Journalists are humans like we all. Expecting them to be completely unbiased would be too much. But should hold them to the professional standard of being open about there biases, and be as neutral as possible in their reporting.

No true Scotsman.

This is just a bad faith argument because you happen to agree with the activism in left-leaning journalism.

Ends justify the means, right?

Projection. I'm a centrist not a leftist.