The word accurate is one of those parsed meanings words that depends on who is determining the meaning in a particular case.
Accurate used to mean "correct" which was determined by the majority opinion of the fact that what is cited is accurate, and this held true for citing an event which took place and which was verifiable by the ones who were in charge of making the determination, usually the governmental authorities who documented it at the time it took place.
One word that is now is always parsed, that sterling word, truth, in this 21st century has turned into a word with a subjective point of view. What is true to one individual that is not an authority but commands the ear of the media, can now be in doubt, and even deemed a falsehood. Also, truth is cited by opposing groups to mean not a shred of truth and a falsehood. Usually, the word truth operates best when it is set out to be adjudicated in a court of law by a jury or judicial opinion. Of course not all judges make the same determination, and if this is not an offense with double jeopardy, but a citing of some instance when this truth was given a Supreme Court heads up, or is in route to the highest court in the land, then the more opposing views of the truth the better.
Which leads me to believe that this 21st century era prefers the subjective versions of the meanings of a value word, like, accurate, and truth, but if this leads to all sorts of misguided acts by individuals that are determined to marshal others in the power structure to see their subjective assessment, and therefore act on their behalf when what they have done does great harm and injury, though it may be subjective as to whom is injured, so be it.
Some say, we are living in a wonderfully progressive democratic world where all the wrongs are not wrong if it is determined subjectively that it is a right.