I think so. As long as you aren’t reporting that Joe Buddy is a professional scientist with peer reviewed studies to back up his claims and make it clear that he is Joe Buddy from down the road and this is his opinion. A failure to give the reader this information would be unfair…. But you have to presume some sort of latent intelligence on the part of the reader - otherwise you very quickly reach the opinion that journalists are the people most capable of discerning truth and not readers. That’s fine, but arguably a dangerous path to start laying. Then journalists themselves become a bought commodity in which the truth can be purchased. Joe Buddy isn’t about Joe Buddy’s crackpot views about X, it’s about the impartiality that someone asked him.

The problem democracy faces now is that journalists need to report politically fairly and that means MTG et al can simply make accusations up. This isn’t a problem with her though - everyone is doing it. Everyone is bypassing the law and using journalism and social media to make accusations. The problem you haven’t identified is that when your team do it, it’s in the interests of truth and justice (according to you) but when the other team does it, it’s all spurious lies. Stop. Switch. Change sides and you’ll see the problem here.