Ok, tricky question. For the record im voting 'mostly true'
There is several things to take into consideration here. But excluding, 'what is truth', 'what is one mans truth against another', 'whom has an agenda' etc., most of the reporting has at least a significant element of truth to it.
eg/
'Lichaa was being poached by Des'
'Fifita did talk with union'
'Tinkler was/is having concerns of whether to re-back his guarantee to the knights'
Now aside from the over-emotive journalism, or largely what are referred to as 'opinion pieces' (#Clubincrisis), The question then is how ppl interpret what they read.
ie/
'Lichaa was being poached by Des' (Lichaa was/is unhappy- this may be true, but may also simply be a matter of dollars)
'Fifita did talk with union' (talk ****, talk about how much they could offer him, talk about how happy he was in league, talk about some union coach he had who had since died etc.,)
'Tinkler was/is having concerns of whether to re-back his guarantee to the knights' (this does not suggest he has money concerns, even though it seems apparent he may)
there is clearly a large distinction to be drawn between ****e journalism, and ****e interpretation, which as we all know, are both all too freely and commonly issued.
so i'll say that reportage IS largely true, however, the 'journos' and the 'pundits' alike are all to happy to let misinterpretations flow freely, which is no different to any other mass media.
and for those that think that 'football supporters' are any less knowledgeable than any other reader, or wish to label them alongside 'conspiracy nuts', 'celebrity nuts', or any other type, they can suck my acorns