First off, criticism of US is not tantamount with objective coverage of Hussein's Iraq, which is what you would have needed to demonstrate in order to "call bullshit" on my example.
Besides, your response is a bit of a contradiction. You claim that "when both sides are held by generally good actors, you report both sides". You seem to be implying that when both sides are not considered "good" then you don't have to cover both sides objectively? I don't think I need to say much to demonstrate why using a word like "good" is entirely subjective, which completely undermines the point of being "objective" in the first place. You can't claim any kind of objectivity, after we have to administer a very subjective screening process, first. Again, that's called a contradiction. The framing of an issue, in and of itself, makes an ethical statement.
How would you even determine the moral status of the actors at hand, in the first place? At best, it sounds like you're simply promoting consensus based ethical filters to predetermine the expected scope of acceptable reporting, as opposed to anything really resembling truth or objectivity. Observe the "objective" reporting around gay marriage, climate change, evolution, and Donald Trump, for further examples of this.
In other words, you're going to have a hard time explaining why journalists have to be "objective" in a conflict like this, but can rightfully lose that objectivity when it comes to conflicts like the Iraq war, all without resorting to ethical arguments. The slightest drop of morality, here, will simply invalidate objectivity as a governing mandate. It has to be an all or nothing concept, like blind justice, or it's basically nonsense.
Thus, it is objectivity that is bullshit, not journalism. If reporters were truly objective, they would have never had the instincts to expose Catholic priests, just to name an example off the top of my head.