Well, the burden remains on you to show that the editors have to operate either entirely arbitrarily, or using collective norms that are to their knowledge contradicted by objective fact. I will even make it simple for you and permit that facts can be obtained and described in such a way as to make this feasible.
> To apply this to our discussion of the media - media outlets are arbitrary
> because they choose to report different facts based on their political or
> cultural preferences, rather than because something objectively happened or
> did not happen in a particular way.
Then, as per your last part, there seems to be an objective way to describe something that happened. So one does have a non-arbitrary (in the sense in which you use that word) way to report. Perhaps the dataset would be prohibitive. There is a need for a filter. Well, this is a standard problem in empirical efforts (including sciences) and hence the reference to norms that help in this process. One can further examine and evaluate these norms.
> Their reporting reflects two things:
> what actually happened (which can be objectively verified or falsified) and
> how this fits into their larger outlook or "weltanschauung."
And these outlooks need not of necessity be arbitrary.
> Now if you want to debate the virtues of science, "objectivism"
> "essentialism" and the assorted word salad that pomo logorrhea managed to
> produce,...
I could ("the virtues of science" that is -- not interested in Ayn Randian philosophy or the pomo anxieties in your head), but judging by your lack of response on my thoughts on your two or three previous attempts, you seemingly don't want to. ;-)
> I suggest proceeding as follows: let's start with walking up to the
> tenth floor of an apartment building, jumping from a window, and then
> discussing the objectivity of the laws of applicable science (thermodynamics
> in this case.)
Or the objectivity of the common sense notion that you are liable to lose your life if you jump off the 10th floor. You don't need thermodynamics to tell you that.
> Since it is you who seem to doubt that objectivity, may I
> suggest that you volunteer to perform the jumping part? It should not
> matter if it's all arbitrary and subjective, no?
Ah, when you can't win 'em, you kill 'em, is it? As noted above, I need believe nothing about the laws of physics to choose not to jump off a building. But hey, why deny you your desire to have physical harm befall me. I will be quite glad to oblige you for the small cost of about $10000. Perhaps even cheaper (I will present you with a bill <= $10000 shortly after the jump). Should I carry out the jump, would you then be bound to accept the claim (NOT MINE) that runs counter to the idea of the objectivity of the laws of science? Methinks it would be silly to do so, from a purely formal logic POV (modus tollens and all that), but who knows what arbitrary selection you use for your logic!
Note that "arbitrary" is the term introduced by you. I am the one who believes that editors can use non-arbitrary criteria/methods to select what to report. Most of them probably actually think that they are being objective in their selection process.
--ravi
P.S: Clue #2: I am a PKF-fanboy, not an out and out relativist.