Answer:
Everyone is biased. But journalists are trained, practiced and devoted to setting their biases aside. The goal, and it’s how it really works, is to report a story accurately, fairly and objectively. “Advocacy journalism” notwithstanding, a reporter who can’t do this is likely looking at a very short career. Or a job at Fox News.
“Personal relevance” is a different matter if it causes a conflict of interest to arise. And it happens. A reporter has a duty to inform his/her editor of a potential conflict. Most often the story will be reassigned. And it’s not because the reporter is incapable of reporting it objectively. A known conflict of interest has the potential to create a perception. A reader or viewer could rightfully question the objectivity of the reporter and the reporting no matter how accurate or fair it might be.
To illustrate how this works, I distanced myself from all stories involving our local school district. My wife worked for the school district. Although I normally assigned and read everything our newsroom produced, another editor would step in on matters involving the schools. I was, by design, kept out of the loop. This was done for her protection (her employer was aware of the policy) and to create a firewall against any possible claim of conflict of interest. It was, at times, a little overboard. But that’s how it needed to be. As a further example of this, when it became known one of our reporters was secretly dating a cop, she was pulled off the police beat and subsequently (and publicly) shown the door.
Does bias manage to creep into a copy? Of course. Does the conflict of interest happen? Sure. And until the machines take over, it likely always will no matter how many safeguards you erect.