Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, they were never unbiased or objective, but they would often try to be a bit less biased and a bit objective. Now some journalists openly mock such efforts and see their job as creating a narrative that suits their political agenda. This is shocking to me and others because the watered down objectivity of the past was still better than nothing.
I think that part of the problem is that people confuse journalism, which is what reporters at newspapers and people in the field do, and editorialism, which is what normally happens on Fox and CNN. Editorials are not journalism, but when the journalism disagrees with people who are accustomed to the nature of the editorials they enjoy, they then see bias on the part of the journalists instead of the commentators.
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?