Wrong articles and rebuttals

I am an editor on my college's newspaper   Often, I see articles that shouldn't be published.  They contain misleading, or even factually wrong claims, and/or are biased often to the point of being bigoted.  I'm not the editor in chief, though, so it's not my call what we do and don't publish. All I can do is recommend.  And sometimes, my recommendations are heeded.  Other times, my editor in chief (or the student adviser) suggest that, if I have a problem with the content, I should write a rebuttal.

I realize that this is pretty much how news works in America now:  every opinion gets as much attention as it's possible for the relevant media to give, and if it's wrong, the solution is rebuttal.  Other people are asked to take the time to laboriously undo as much of the damage as they can.  But no amount of rebuttal can ever do the amount of harm reduction that can be achieved by simply not publishing wrong stuff in the first place.

Also: most people barely skim the first story they read on a topic, very few people devote the sustained attention to a single topic they care little about that is necessary to digest two contradictory articles.

Not that there's anything I can do about it.  It just annoys me.  A lot.