Accurate is what reflects reality. Reality isn't neutral. Some things are bad, and worsen society, and others are good.

"Neutral reporting" presents a false equivalence between different options that seldom are equal.

And of course itself is based on an "idea on the subject": that the role of reporting is to have no values aside from information transmission.

The specific objection is even more bizarre: yes, if it was for something else it would have been worded differently. That's like there being a car accident described as "tragic" and someone objecting that if it was a wedding or a sports win that had happened instead they'd have described them as positive. Sure. Because they're different things.