One of the weird things about doing something mostly benevolent is that you end up breaking the standard journalism algorithm. We've hit this on several occasions. They feel like they have to find something at least slightly bad to say about us, and they end up choosing something random. It seems like the same thing happens to Google.
I'm not sure if this happens because it's an axiom of journalism that every story has two sides, or because conflict makes stories interesting. Maybe both. But one sees it often on TV news. A city bans people from setting one another on fire, and the reporter diligently tracks down the president of the local chapter of Pyromaniacs of America to offer the other side of the story.