Attempted reductio of the journalistic norm of "objectivity"?

Today, in the NYT, we have a story entitled Turin Shroud Going on TV, With Video From Pope.  In it, we learn "On Good Friday, a Piedmont company, Haltadefinizione, introduced a new app, Shroud 2.0, which features images of the cloth along with scientific and theological interpretations prepared with the Diocese of Turin and the International Center of Sindonology. Sindonology is the scientific study of the shroud[!]."

We also "learn" about a heated dispute, of which the Times duly reports "both sides".

"The artifact is arguably the most tested religious object in history, analyzed over the years by scores of scientists, their findings providing endless fodder for countless sindonologists."

On one side: "Skeptics say plenty of evidence corroborates a medieval dating, including carbon-14 tests done in 1988 by three independent laboratories. They dated the cloth between 1260 and 1390."

And on the other: "But others dispute that. Using infrared light, multiparametric mechanical tests and spectroscopy to analyze tiny fibers of material from the cloth, Giulio Fanti, a professor at the University of Padua, found they were compatible with fibers dating from around the time of Christ. ...Mr. Fanti said he thought the image could have been created by a “very intense burst of energy,” which could have mutated the percentage of carbon-14 in the linen, leading some scientists to wrongly date it to the 13th century."

 It would, of course, violate norms of journalistic objectivity to weigh in on which of these views is more credible.