I'd argue that the credibility of any institution comes not from its refusal to shape its message but from the openness and verifiability of any claims that are made and/or focused on. WL is part of a new kind of journalistic movement, it's not an anthropological organization.

The credibility of WL depends on it's willingness to be transparent about its processes and to let anyone who reads the fine print determine that the PR headline was fundamentally accurate. The need to even write headlines presupposes that 5-7 words can offer the gist of what the full document states. It's absurd to think that an unbiased headline could possibly exist, it's just a question of what the headline writer thinks is important.

Incidentally, this is the same credibility metric that I'd apply to governments, which WL is helping to usher in by offering a way to measure government claims with a BS-o-meter to reveal what was propaganda and artifice intended to make people draw specific conclusions.

It's up to the reader to figure out the truth, but the pretense of 100% neutrality is overrated. Think about it, lots of people believe that major newspapers are neutral. The key is that WL provides the raw data so that over time it can earn credibility. This is something that even the most respected newspapers refuse to do.

Even though I'm generally a supporter of WL, I'm the first to admit that its PR approach began as naive and has progressed to what I'd call "emotional". But WL is also very much a startup and will gain experience that lets it earn deeper credibility over time (or not).

There is no truth, only messages. I mean, sure, there are facts about the physical world, but as soon as you bring in people, there are only perceptions.