Are fairness and objectivity necessary any more?

Let's call this an early session of Journalism 101, and you, kind readers, are the students. There will be a quiz.

President Trump's game-changing administration has created a minefield for decent, hard-working reporters who are accustomed to the rhythms of what we can call "the old way of doing things." The old way was safe, predictable, comfortable and, on the whole, accurate.

In both the old way and the tweet-filled new way, the nuances of fairness and objectivity are being bruised -- even mangled -- by print, broadcast and digital reporters -- and the editors to whom they report, if anyone.

Now, class, you might want to take some notes here, because I'm about to cite a couple of examples. As you know, examples are the foundation of any decent quiz.

A few days ago it was widely reported that top-level functionaries of the State Department had resigned following the confirmation of the new secretary of state. These reports led readers to believe the resignations were a protest against the Trump administration.

Other news outlets, however, were reporting that the departure of the functionaries was due to the acceptance of their obligatory resignations, the same resignations tendered by everyone left over from the Obama administration. In this particular instance, those resignations from the top-level functionaries were accepted by the Trump administration.

So which was it?

Protest?

Or routine resignation?

What caught my attention was the way news outlets seemed to choose one version or the other.

Here's the critical question: Why not report both explanations and let news consumers decide on their own?

Here's another example:

Scott Pelley on "The CBS Evening News" earlier this week interviewed a former top CIA operative who frequently comments on the news for the network. The former CIA operative presented a gloomy forecast concerning the fallout of President Trump's executive order regarding immigration from seven mostly Muslim countries.

I'll grant that the former CIA operative's insight was interesting and illuminating. But where was the counterpoint representing the voice of Islam? Wouldn't fairness and objectivity require both sides to be presented?

Apparently not. CBS wasn't the only news source to fall into the same trap.

Many news organizations, including this newspaper, found Muslims affected by the new immigration policy and allowed them to tell their stories. They were often heart-rending.

These reactions to the president's executive order were valid expressions of the consequences of government policy-making.

But where were the companion stories about Americans whose families have been forever imploded by the loss of life to terrorists and to IEDs? These would be the folks who applaud Trump's immigration stance. This newspaper ran the negative local reaction on Page 1. The Associated Press' story regarding supporters of the policy appeared on Page 9.

Fairness.

Objectivity.

These are two of the foundation stones in the journalism of a free society.

These are two of the most difficult concepts to preserve in the real world where no two consumers of even the best journalistic efforts are likely to agree on the message.

I see this plainly whenever I get comments about my weekly scribbling. I am constantly amazed by the tone and thrust of many of the comments, because I don't recognize any connection between them and what I wrote. Or what I intended to convey. Or how disparate the message received by readers.

The role of those whose job it is to keep us informed about our government has become significantly more difficult with our new president.

It appears that sometimes the Trump tweets and belligerent bellowing of the new press secretary (I get to say that, because this is an opinion column, not a news story) defy the standards of fairness and objectivity. But those who present the news are still bound by the principles that have served us well for more than two centuries.

OK. Here's the quiz:

What do you think?

Joe Sullivan is the retired editor of the Southeast Missourian.