The folks at Fox News claim some sort of bright line of demarcation between their news shows and their opinion shows. Jon Stewart keeps demonstrating (in pieces like this one) that it's a distinction without much difference and that the news pushes the Fox agendum as forcefully as the opinion programming and often with interlocking language. In the meantime, a lot of newspapers today seem to think that fairness on the editorial page means you let some Liberal say anything he or she wants to say and you let some Conservative say anything he or she wants to say…and if someone lies or misquotes, hey, that's someone else's problem.
My understanding from back when I took Journalism classes is that, yes, it's Kosher for a news-gathering outlet to compartmentalize with a separate opinion section. But they're not supposed to be totally separate in that it reflects on the accuracy of the news division if something in the opinion section misstates facts. Let's say the governor lowered taxes 10%. I can write an op-ed that says he's a lousy governor but the newspaper has an obligation not to let me say, "That lousy governor raised taxes 20%." The newspaper may not endorse my (or any) viewpoint but it has an obligation to the historical record to maintain accuracy in every corner of the publication.
That seems to be going away in the news media of the day, with writers seeming entitled to not only their own opinions but to their own sets of facts. The editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is notorious for citing stats and reporting on events in ways that contradict the front page of that very same newspaper. We just had a real good example of this in the Washington Post. Senator Orrin Hatch wrote this piece about Health Care Reform. Columnist E.J. Dionne then wrote this piece that said, in effect, that Senator Hatch's article was wildly inaccurate and misleading.
Forget for the minute whether you want to see Health Care Reform pass or not. Also remember a core principle, which is that it is possible to write a dishonest, factually-challenged article in support of a good cause. (As a general rule of thumb, I don't respect the opinions of anyone who isn't willing to occasionally correct his own side, and not just when trapped into doing so.) At least one of these two essays — the one by Hatch or the one by Dionne — is full of this stuff. One of them misstates the facts of what's going on and misquotes people discussing it. Why was that piece published? Why did the Post let it go through?
I don't think "presenting both sides" is an explanation. It still means misinformation in a newspaper and newspapers aren't supposed to spread misinformation. Even on their editorial pages.