Whatever happened to objectivity in the media?

The coverage of Zimbabwe in the media is more of a chorus of condemnation of Mugabe. I agree with much of Paul's post below because I feel the media are missing a critical point in covering Zimbabwe, objectivity. It might be argued that in the face of a monster, objectivity is shoved and sides are implicitly decided, but who's defining the monster?

Even the New York Times have had to run a lengthy apology after it published a picture of a young child supposedly a victim of Mugabe's marauding army of youths only to later discover that the child's mother exaggerated the child's birth defect in a desperate effort to get medical help for the child. Yes, it's sad that a mother has to resort to such means but what remains is the fact that the media are in such a hurry to paint a particular picture of Zimbabwe that ethics are being severely undermined.