You're talking about blurring the difference between journalism and opinion.
It should be challenged and ridiculed. That is the journalist's duty, and they failed.
Their job is not to be a copy and paste machine for company press releases.
It's one thing if the company is outright lying, but PR blather doesn't really count (for all that it's pointless and annoying.) In any event, yeah, if they want to editorialize, that's fine but it's done in a separate "Editorial" section. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial )
Letting the PR speech stand by itself without large red arrows pointing at the absurdity gives it way too much power imho.
It's the opinion of the journalist: is this information worth writing about?
It's the opinion of the editor: is this part worth changing?
It's the opinion of the publisher: is this piece worth publishing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_reply
> The right of reply or right of correction generally means the right to defend oneself against public criticism in the same venue where it was published. In some countries, such as Brazil, it is a legal or even constitutional right. In other countries, it is not a legal right as such, but a right which certain media outlets and publications choose to grant to people who have been severely criticised by them, as a matter of editorial policy.
You might not like it but it is a thing.
And if they choose to defend themselves with a load of PR doublespeak BS, well, that's also news, eh?
If the reporter adds "...which is obviously bullshit." at the end that's the difference between journalism and a SNL sketch. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9qblOghuKk )