Do different kinds of journalists experience different ethical restrictions?

It appears that there are two kinds of journalists: the objective ones and the subjective ones. They perhaps experience ethical restrictions in different ways
because of the different styles of their practice.

Most traditional journalists are objective-style journalists. They act as unbiased observers and objective reporters. Even though they know that pure “objectivity” is hard to attain, they do their best to be as neutral and balanced as possible. They provide factual information and other people’s opinion but hide their own opinions and feelings. Another type is subjective-style journalists, also known as opinion journalists. More often, they play roles such as commentator or advocate. They are opinionated, emotional and act as individuals. They do not pursue objectivity and do not pretend to be neutral.

When choosing journalism as a profession, in order to avoid conflict of interests or harming their news organization’s credibility, journalists’ personal rights, especially the rights of free expression, is limited. I wonder whether or not the objective-style journalist experiences more ethical restrictions than the opinion journalist does. Usually, journalists should not participate in politics, should not join institutions that may make the headlines, and have to be cautious when giving speeches, accepting interviews, or writing freelance articles and books, etc. However, who would criticize Bill O’Reilly when he published several books to express his personal beliefs? Who would care if Rush Limbaugh attended a Republican’s political event or speak out in other people’s shows? Because they are subjective-style journalists, their “bias” won’t harm their news organization. Generally speaking, when journalists portray themselves as opinion journalists, they probably get a special pass. They may experience less restriction and enjoy more free expression than the objective-style journalists do.