Retrieval-Augmented Generation Must Move Beyond Factual Grounding to Represent Diverse Opinions

This position paper argues that Retrieval-Augmented Generation systems exhibit a systematic factual bias-optimizing for epistemic uncertainty reduction while ignoring the aleatoric uncertainty inherent in opinion-rich content - and that this misalignment demands a paradigm shift in retrieval system design. A survey of 35 major RAG benchmarks reveals that only one addresses opinion synthesis, confirming that the bias is structural: embedded in datasets, retrieval objectives, and evaluation metrics alike. Beyond technical limitations, this bias poses risks to transparent and accountable AI: echo chamber effects that amplify dominant viewpoints, systematic under-representation of minority voices, and potential opinion manipulation through biased information synthesis. We formalize the problem through the lens of uncertainty quantification, showing that factual queries should minimize posterior entropy while opinion queries must preserve it, and derive a unified objective over coverage, fidelity, and fairness using the Wasserstein distance. As an existence proof, we present Opinion-Aware RAG (O-RAG), an architecture featuring LLM-based opinion extraction and entity-linked opinion metadata, and evaluate it across two domains - e-commerce seller forums and public hotel reviews - spanning 10K+ discussions and 6K+ customer reviews. Experiments demonstrate 18-48% reduction in Wasserstein distance to corpus-level sentiment distributions, +26.8% sentiment diversity, and +42.7% entity match rate, with human evaluators preferring opinion-enriched responses 79.2% of the time. We propose a research agenda and argue that as RAG systems increasingly mediate access to information, their ability to represent diverse perspectives is not optional but essential.