D the G. the thread was about the Daily mail being unreliable as a source of news:
"The general themes of the support votes centred on the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication."
You look hard enough and many newspapers could be tarred with the same brush, either wholly or in part.
My reason for comparing newspapers with Hansard is that accurate reporting of dialogue from a reputable source does not guarantee the veracity of the recorded content. It is merely a transcript of the proceedings. If those proceedings contain lies, spin, bullsh*t, then that is accurately recorded. Just like certain newspaper articles truth is relegated to the back row. All sources can be suspect and need consideration even Hansard. That is why I used it as an example as far away from the mainstream media as it is possible to get.

Also Wikipedia can come up with some howlers when first posted, although I will concede they are generally corrected quite quickly.