It's been my fortunate experience to work with a lot of reporters who, when approached properly, will engage in a calm, rational conversation about their stories, even if my intent is to challenge them about a stated fact or, even, their overall premise.
Having said that, it has also been my experience that generally speaking, reporters, more so than any other profession, are likely to get sensitive, angry, offended, snippy, hurt, vindictive, or just plain mean when you question or criticize their work.
Check out this story from the PBS Idea Lab: "Why Can't Journalists Handle Public Criticism?"
Of course, no one likes to hear criticism of their work. No one likes to be second guessed. But reporters see themselves as the protectors of the public trust, the upholders of truth and accuracy, and above reproach when it comes to impartiality and fairness, all of which means that their threshold for tolerating criticism is much lower than most.
The fact is, as I see it, despite striving to remove all traces of partiality and opinion from their work, in other words, despite trying to become something more (or less?) than human in their work, reporters are still, nevertheless, human. Humans have opinions, humans make mistakes, and humans are subject to scrutiny.
For that reason, reporters will always be second-guessed. It will be the ones who learn how to deal with it effectively and dispassionately who develop the strongest possible reputation with their readers and their sources.