Even if an article is written that only contains hard facts there are many ways it can be biased. It could exclude inconvenient facts (this is the most common), it can have inconvenient information at the end of the article where most people don't read. Some news can also just be ignored. Some parts of a story are never surfaced simply because no one cares about it or knows about it.

Journalists are flawed humans like everyone else and expecting them to produce complete and objective reporting is not only unfair it is literally impossible.

So no, I do not believe there is such a thing as objective reporting generated by a single human or a single organization. The only true, unbiased journalism would be some sort of technology that could let everyone view the full entirety of any event from any perspective without a human brain and sensory system in between. That's not practical.

Practically speaking, it is up to the reader to consume as many varying sources as possible and then come to their own conclusion. But who has time for that?

Simply choosing what gets reporter time or page space or air time or whatever introduces huge bias, even if the coverage itself is meaningfully "objective". Listen to NPR (let alone anything else) and you'd think there's rarely labor action happening. Listen to Democracy Now and you'd think there's constantly labor action happening.

More importantly, because neither system gives you meaningful context, both of those things you mention can be true at the same time and you could never know which to trust.

When you want to validate a piece of information in your view of the world (to use your example, "how common is labor action?"), the most important question to ask (and often the question with the most obscure answer) is "what is the base rate?".