> Striving to eliminate as much as possible the reporter's subjectivity results in what we see frequently in the media today: "He said, she said" journalism whe

> Striving to eliminate as much as possible the reporter's subjectivity results in what we see frequently in the media today: "He said, she said" journalism where the reported facts consist merely of reports that varying parties made various claims. Wikipedia does that too to some degree. The goal for claims in a wikipedia article is that they be verifiable, not that they be true. The definition of a "verifiable" claim is that somebody made that claim in a "reliable source". So people wanting to push a point of view will pad out the article with references to other people expressing that view. Pointing out that the view is wrong and explaining why tends to be discarded as "original research". In instances when the conventional wisdom is wrong but widely reported, wikipedia will tend to report that conventional wisdom. The good news is that often when this happens, you can find what contrary points of view are being suppressed by skimming the associated talk page. It's usually worth doing that on controversial and/or current topics.