Reporting isn't deciding. Newspapers can't say, "He changes his story all the time" and then just not print what he says. They have to indicate what was said, at least briefly: "the President expressed a desire to have the U.S. remain a leader in clean air & water". To me, that's reporting. I'm having a hard time explaining this so it makes sense. The press isn't to make a judgment on what happened at an event. Picture it like a secretary recording the minutes of a meeting. All key things are noted, not one single one is left out. They don't decide that one of the board members in a school district has a habit of making false claims that are never backed up, they simply record what occurred. Reporting does all that and then also goes one step further: it reaches out to credible spokespeople on various sides of the issues and elicits their take on the events. This allows us to hear two sides fully so we are fully informed. All that is what I'm after.  Do you agree with that standard?