Even in the rare cases where true expects a interviewed we rarely get a completely objective opinion. This, I believe, is either because the journalist are trying to steer the conversation into a direction he or she understands or because it make for more "exciting" news.
It's truly sad that the media believes that it should dumb down content, or make it more "easily available" at the cost of the truth and correctness. I don't think the average media consumers are so dumb that it's necessary and if they are presenting the with incorrect information surely can't be helping the issue.
I have this discussion with people about Wikileaks all the time. "Assange is such an arrogant prick" "Oh? What did he say that made you think that?" "Uh, I dunno, he just seems like a prick every time I read something about him" "So you've never actually sat down and listened to him speak for more than 10 seconds?"
Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true except for that rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge. —Erwin Knoll