Yes. Or at least that is what Gauthier tells us. A study shows that sometimes "objectivity" can have an empty meaning and there are different ways to oppose it.
First, an epistemological opposition which means that there is no way of having a full and complete knowledge of reality. It goes further by saying that for one to develop the sufficient knowledge, the understanding, the appropriate means of research, he or she needs a lifetime. Therefore, being objective in the sense of getting all the knowledge and showing all the different sides to a story can be easily questioned.
Secondly, we can talk about an ontological contestation. This goes from the point that "reality" as we refer to it does not exist inherently from the conscious human observer. This entails that for a journalist to tell a story he de facto tell it through his personal point of view.
Follows, the pragmatic critique. It tells us that journalists, trying to be objective, adopt certain methods of work. This, in way, standardizes their methodology, and makes it an objective one. Though, what this theory says is that using an objective "method of work" does not necessarily mean obtaining an objective result - article, news report.
Finally, we find the ethical critique of objectivity. It sates that in a worry of being objective, many journalists will write and publish things that may negatively impact the public. In other words, under the cover of objectivity, journalists will let go of their ethical/moral code.
