It is hardly a surprise, based on the cacophonous tones of social media, that nobody’s really interested in the facts of Peyton Manning v. Al Jazeera. This is how it works now. The truth is muted above the roars. Facts are fine-tuned by who reports them. It’s not about “what happened?” anymore. It’s about:

Who did the reporting?

What is the agenda of the particular reporter or news outlet?

What is the agenda of the subsequent social commentators?

Sad. Objectivity has become completely subjective, what with readers and viewers more interested in which media outlets can report news that reinforces their own predispositions rather than dispassionate common denominator information.

It’s been fascinating over the last few days to monitor public opinion. Manning supporters decry the report of his alleged HGH use as a smear campaign. Manning detractors — many in the Boston media, it appears — have turned this into another Brady vs. Manning referendum, this time critiquing other media outlets’ handling of the news. Translation: If this had been poor, persecuted Tom Brady, ESPN would have interrupted regularly scheduled programming to air such exciting headlines.

But what of the true guts of the story? Specifically this: Manning’s threats to sue may sound like the last bastion of someone trying to maintain his good name. Yet because Al Jazeera introduced medical information pertaining to Manning’s wife, Ashley, might the Mannings have a legitimate case?

I asked some people in the medical field Monday whether what’s been presented — sharing a patient’s medical records or history without the patient’s consent — qualifies as a violation of HIPAA: the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

HIPAA is complicated, although its privacy requirements are not. The people I asked Monday were steadfast in their belief that what Ashley Manning may or may not have taken is her business and her business only, irrelevant to her husband and his own medical issues. Moreover, one physician said, it’s not illegal to use HGH with a prescription and would be a violation of federal law to identify the doctor who prescribed it.

Isn’t that what key witness Charlie Sly just did?

Manning, a public figure, must live with the blessings and curses that come with living a public life. Except certain privacies apply to everybody. Who among us would click our heels and sing showtunes at the thought of our spouse’s medical history plastered all over television?

This, of course, is irrelevant to the conspiracy theorists. Manning is the golden boy who gets the benefit of the doubt, while others aren’t so fortunate. But for those of us who are more interested in the facts of the case than perpetuating persecution complexes, doesn’t it appear as though most of the facts are on Manning’s side?

Privacy violations aside, how can the Al Jazeera report be taken seriously when its key witness, a man either appropriately or coincidentally named Sly, retracted much of what he said already? Then there’s this: Have any of us been present when Al Jazeera drew comparisons with Mike Wallace and Morley Safer?

It doesn’t mean Manning is innocent. But you’d have to be a militant member of the Anti-Peyton Club — or a miserable Patriots fan — to conclude Manning’s guilty after watching Sunday’s report. The entire story requires Charlie Sly to connect the dots. Let’s just say Mr. Sly doesn’t appear ready to spell the word “dots” let alone connect them.

As one columnist wrote Monday: “The problem isn’t the star of this story, and what he might or might not have done with performance enhancing drugs. For now, the problem is the witness.”

This is the opinion of Day sports columnist Mike DiMauro.

Twitter: @BCgenius