Please read the essay [0] before reacting to some out-of-context quotes. The essay is about the problem wherein "objectivity" is itself not an objective thing, but wherein the hegemony opinion is taken as fact.

Let me extract a relevant passage for you:

> Since American journalism’s pivot many decades ago from an openly partisan press to a model of professed objectivity, the mainstream has allowed what it considers objective truth to be decided almost exclusively by white reporters and their mostly white bosses. And those selective truths have been calibrated to avoid offending the sensibilities of white readers. On opinion pages, the contours of acceptable public debate have largely been determined through the gaze of white editors.

> The views and inclinations of whiteness are accepted as the objective neutral. When black and brown reporters and editors challenge those conventions, it’s not uncommon for them to be pushed out, reprimanded or robbed of new opportunities.

Another passage:

> For years, I’ve been among a chorus of mainstream journalists who have called for our industry to abandon the appearance of objectivity as the aspirational journalistic standard, and for reporters instead to focus on being fair and telling the truth, as best as one can, based on the given context and available facts.

And:

> And so, instead of promising our readers that we will never, on any platform, betray a single personal bias — submitting ourselves to a life sentence of public thoughtlessness — a better pledge would be an assurance that we will devote ourselves to accuracy, that we will diligently seek out the perspectives of those with whom we personally may be inclined to disagree and that we will be just as sure to ask hard questions of those with whom we’re inclined to agree.

> The best of our profession already does this. But we need to be honest about the gulf that lies between the best and the bulk.

And:

> It’s been more than 50 years since the first black journalists appeared in mainstream American newsrooms. For all of that time, black journalists have made meager demands: Please hire some more of us. Please pay us the way you do our colleagues. Please allow us to ascend to leadership roles. Please consider our opinions about how accurate and fair coverage of all communities, especially our own, can be achieved.

> Collectively, the industry has responded to generations of black journalists with indifference at best and open hostility at its frequent worst.

Finally, as for the claim that the Republican party is a "refuge to white supremacist rhetoric and policies"... well, it is. Does that mean Republicans are all inherently racist? Of course not. But since the 00s, the % of racist Republicans has increased compared to the % of racist Democrats [1], although racism seems to be generally declining under both parties.

Anecdotally, Republicans tend to favor non-interventionist domestic policy, which in turn tends to allow the end products of racism (urban poverty, discrimination) to continue. Also anecdotally, the people I know who are the least interested in undoing the evils caused by slavery and segregation are also the most Republican. It's not overtly "white supremacist", but it is absolutely a failure to acknowledge just how evil and harmful the historical white supremacism of the USA really was... and that's just talking about the evils levied on the descendants of African slaves. We'll have to discuss the overt genocide of Native Americans another time.

Edit: the author goes into detail about the Cotton editorial situation as well. You might be surprised to learn that there can be multiple perspectives on a situation.

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/opinion/objectivity-black...

[1]: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-white-republicans-m...