As an example, The New York Times recently published a front page story by Kenneth Chang on "Intelligent Design" vs. evolution. It started off with several paragraphs which gave the "Intelligent Design" position in the debate, and every criticism of that position in the rest of the article was preceded with some conjugation of "scientists say". Biologists howled all over the net that what "scientists say" is, in fact, the truth, that the "Intelligent Design" side consists of demonstrable misinterpretations, and that the "even handed" presentation in the Times created the appearance of a legitimate debate where none really exists.
What makes this case unusual is that the reporter himself showed up, in more than one comment thread to defend himself. Which he did by presenting the "scientist say" paragraphs from his article. He feels comfortable leaving to the reader the judgment of which side of this debate is the sober thinkers, and which the screaming moonbats, even if it gives the reader no basis at all for making that judgment. Because even if one side of an argument is obviously right, and another is obviously deluded or lying, a journalist can't say so. You can't state that kind of fact and still be "objective".
Some cynics might observe that when the press has these standards, any fact, no matter how well established, can be made to seem the object of legitimate debate just by paying some sober-looking fellow to utter statements which could only be believed by someone utterly ignorant of the actual evidence, or failing that, a screaming moonbat. They might even suggest that that's what the oil companies have been doing by stirring up a false debate on global warming, and what the funders of innumerable right-wing think tanks have been doing on social issues.
Why cheapen your life by listening to these cynics?