My mama always said 'objective is as objective does'

To be objective is something in which one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish - a purpose, a goal, or a target. In journalism being objective is really telling the truth.
In todays society though how true is the truth?
David Brooks makes a very interesting statement when he talks about truthful journalism and objectivity; he says 'I think there is truth out there and objectivity is like virtue; it's the thing you always fall short of, but the thing you always strive toward.'
Journalists are needed to report the happenings in the world - the news!!!
This means that they should be objective; sometimes though there is a line into how truthful one should be - should journalists betray their friends in order to sell a story?
Here in lies the idea about the publics right to know - do they need to know about the issue or do they not?
If a journalist has a friend who is a drug smuggler, or some sort of dnagerous terrorist, or killer then the public do need to know.The journalist should break this story.
But what about a friend having an affair or something private about certain individuals?
The recent scandal surrounding shamed ex health minister John Della Bosca is a great example of this. Debate has surrounded this case; does the public have a right to the private affair that Della Bosca was having or should it have been left alone?
He made certain mistakes in his duties due to the affair and this is really the only justified reason for the public knowing - is this fair?
Were the journalists and PR folk involved in breaking this story really being objective or were they just trying to sell a story?