That's no so hard.
A news organization has a responsibility to find out if the news they are reporting is factually correct, and if it's important.
If they can't verify the facts, then they may just publish the people's claims, but again, the matter of importance comes in -- is the fact that someone is making the claim important? If someone in power says a lie about COVID, that may still be worth reporting, because the fact that a person in power misled is, itself, important. But if some rando political operatives push an unverifiable story, the fact that they are claiming it isn't itself a story, unless the facts are true.
Given enough power you can make look any “fact” as the truth. This has been accomplished a couple of times in the past. I.e. the war against Iraq started with the “fact” that there are mass destruction weapons. All mainstream media supported this “fact” when the war began. Turns out later there was no mass destruction weapon. Publicly admitted by the US government. So a “fact” for one person isn’t a “fact” for the other because both have a different perception of truth. But again, given enough power, you can manufacture consent and thus manufacture a “wrong truth”.
> Same goes with your point saying more opinion leads to more misinformation.
I didn't say that more opinion leads to misinformation. I said nothing about opinion at all.
the whole point of his article he published is you don't shut down opinions and works of other journalists just because you don't agree with it as an editor.