That would work well in situations involving facts—politics, for example. It's relatively easy to fact check a claim like, "since President Obama assumed office

That would work well in situations involving facts—politics, for example. It's relatively easy to fact check a claim like, "since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history." But creationists and evolutionists make claims about the distant past. There are no facts available, we have to evaluate evidence and reasoning. Even if, as in this example, the evidence strongly favours one side over the other, a journalist is ultimately conveying his own assessment of the "debate". This court case is even less amenable to fact-checking. So far, the court hasn't made any findings of fact or legal rulings. All we've got is arguments from each side. About the only thing a journalist can do is evaluate them. So if you insist that reporters avoid inserting their opinions into the story, then duaneb is right - the only fact available is that Apple filed a response. If the DOJ-Apple case were really important to me, then yeah, I'd read the filing myself and form my own opinion from the primary source. But to me, this case isn't that important. It's interesting, and I'll keep an eye on it as it progresses, but I don't want to invest a lot of time and energy in it. That's why I prefer Philip Elmer-DeWitt's approach to duaneb's. It gives me the facts along with the reporter's experienced if not expert opinion. It's clear which is which, contains enough argument in support of the opinion that I can evaluate DeWitt's reasoning. It's a bit snarky for my taste, and I view that as a weakness in DeWitt's argument, but ultimately it doesn't matter whether I agree with him. I've learn something without having to become a reporter myself.