Most everyone has been either to a sporting event or another event of significance which subsequently was covered by the media via print or television, of which, upon reading or viewing this information, the person that was at that event, doesn't fundamentally agree with the perspective presented by that writer or program. In other words, a given person has been at an event, and the ensuing coverage of it, doesn't seem to display fairly what actually occurred. Of course, we could say that different viewpoints come up with different analysis; so too, we could say that those with an agenda, hidden or otherwise, will consistently spin their coverage to reflect that agenda.
Additionally, from time-to-time regular folks are interviewed, and a very common refrain of those that have been interviewed, when they see or read about such, is that what has been printed or shown is, once again, not a fair reflection of their individual take on what they really said or were trying to get across. It makes one believe, based on that personal example, that the organization putting together those articles or programs, is in general, apparently suffering from a lack of integrity, as well as of accuracy.
A fair solution that would be perfectly above board for these scenarios as given would be, if time and budget permitted, to allow the person so being interviewed to actually have their say upon the piece before it was published or disseminated. That is to say, what an organization has written or is set to be televised for the benefit of public knowledge, should, in fairness to those that are integral to such, permit their comments and feedback, before the publication,; of which, that would seem to be a fair way to thereupon present something that was closer to being in harmony to the whole truth.
There are definitely organizations that do exactly that, by allowing those so being interviewed or being recorded, to have their say and to thereby make their comments, of which the piece thereupon reflects that additional point of view, for good reporting necessitates that this is done. The reason why good reporting requires vetting by those that have been reported upon, is the fact that the media does not always get it right, and further that this serves to constrain media outlets from behaving more as propagandists as opposed to being a reliable source of accurate information.
After all, decisions made in corporate offices in which only one side is considered or one viewpoint is validated, aren't going to be the best decisions. So too, all those that spend an inordinate amount of time gossiping, or talking behind one's back, are exactly the type of people that are behaving in a manner in which they have little or no interest in telling a complete or fair story but rather are preferring to present things in a manner that will either make themselves look good, or the other party look bad, or both.
We are fortunate to live in a country, that has a free press, but if that press by its presentation has only the aura of truthfulness but none of the substance, than the people are clearly harmed by that lack of full integrity as well as full disclosure.