Given the examples of bias you provide - bullshit psyops and corporate whitewashing - and even more given the fact that you do not mention the political/ideological bias many if not most 'politically sensitive topics' have I can but assume that you do not notice that bias because it happens to coincide with your own standpoints and as such just assume those biased statements to be true and worthy of note. Just imagine what you would have thought of Wikipedia had all those entries been biased towards the 'other' side to get an idea of just how strong the bias is. Imagine a lauding article on e.g. Trump where anything critical of the man was quickly edited out. When you try to add some common sense to the clearly biased article you're met with a string of reverts without any clear explanation other that 'not noteworthy', 'unreliable source' or 'against the NPOV'. You try again and again but hit the same wall every time. After trying to add some balanced information to the clearly flawed entry you receive a warning from an administrator who tells you that edit warring is not tolerated.

That is what many if not most people mean when they state that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for any controversial topic or people.