That's so dishonest it isn't even funny. I was interviewed a few years back because I built an - unreleased - search engine and the interviewer wanted me to say some particular stuff about Google. I refused and the interview atmosphere was definitely very much different after that. There are plenty of good journalists but there are also a bunch of them that are complete jerks that fabricate stuff rather than report on reality.

My friend's friend interviewed me for the college paper re: online poker. Her final article had quotes taken out of context here and there. Painted me as a degenerate gambler drowning in luck. In reality, I had 2 years of positive cash flow and stable, increasing profits with records of every single hand played. Fortunately, the editor threw the article away (I'm not sure why, but I like to think it was seen as biased). How naive I was, though. That article could have been on the reasonably prominent paper website, available to anyone googling me even now. I lost a friend over it. Everyone's got their own agenda. Journalists are just closer to the public eye.

Every English class I've had growing up in America has a bunch of assignments like this:

1. Pick a topic.

2. Pick a position.

3. Find sources that support your position.

4. Write.

If English were held to the same high standard as the sciences, it would go:

1. Pick a topic.

2. Research sources.

3. Pick your position.

4. Write.

It's not surprising that the people who do the best in English have carried this mindset with them to their job.

I remember the day I realized that most of "journalism" is basically a narrative confirmation machine.

each newspaper or media got a well defined narrative and they make the facts look like the narrative by using the "omission" technique: Basically removing the inconvenient facts and publishing the edited facts that fit their world view.