A story came up on CBC.ca today that, I think, shows the difference between the media in Canada and the US.
Now the important part of this story isn't the story, it's how the story is written. Notice that there's no "quest for objectivity" by seeking someone to argue the point: the writer does it.
This is the part that shows the difference:
The pessimistic view was that Harper, lacking a parliamentary majority, can do little to make Canadians "adopt a more reasonable view of the United States" and abandon Marxist principles "such as same-sex marriage and abortion on demand," Weyrich says.
He does not say how these things are linked in his mind to Marxism, a doctrine better known for concepts of class warfare.
See that? The writer (very politely) call bullshit. Not only is the statement very clearly defined to be opinion and not fact, but there's the added bit where the writer questions what the opinion is based on.
That's how you do it.