It is, and has been for decades. Usually, when I read articles on a topic which I have researched, I find the reporting tends to be "wrong" in some sense. Charitably this can be blamed on time or space constraints: the articles need to be ready for publication while the story is relevant, so the author has insufficient time to achieve expertise; or even if the author is an expert, they are incentivized to publish only the most interesting (and perhaps most superficial) details on the subject. Less charitably, you might suspect that the author (or their editor) has a bias depending on what they elide or emphasize. Herman & Chomsky wrote about this topic[0] examining the various filters that determine what gets reported and from what angle.

However, it's recently become politically controversial to acknowledge this fact, I think because Trump uses "fake news" to disqualify criticism of himself and his administration[1]. But let's not pretend that journalism is without faults or bias just because (on average) the virtues of the fourth estate outweigh their flaws.

-----

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

1. He's hardly the first person to have issues with his press coverage, but it seems like he's getting a bit more traction with his complaints. It helps that he has an observably hostile relationship with the press. But the term "fake news" was originally applied to right-wing blogspam/memes that showed up during the 2016 election, which were highly slanted, based on cherry-picked information if not outright lies.