At some point, journalists should just drop the facade of being "objective" because it never works. There are people that you're going to get along with and people you won't, it's silly to pretend that a journalist (especially someone with a personality like Borges or Lupica or any BIG TIME journalist) is going to get along and treat everyone equally.
If Borges said, "Yeah, I went to eat at Bledsoe's house because he's a friend of mine and I think that he got a raw deal by Belichick." would anyone really have a bone to pick with Borges? But Borges is an ass and has to pretend that he's smarter than everyone else by flat out lying. You hear it from sports writers over and over and over and over again when an athlete gets caught in a lie, "It's not the initial lie, it's the cover-up." Yet they rarely ever take their own advice.
Jut own it, man. It's ok if you don't like Belichick, he makes your job dificult. He's kind of an ass. He gave your buddy a raw deal. I may not agree with you, but I understand the reasons. Don't blow smoke up my ass and say that you're objective and you're writing about the Belichick era in an objective manner because that completely insults my intelligence. But again, Ron Borges is the cleverest man in the room, so ...