I've given up on the TV media entirely and most of the print media. The fact that a Florida producer edited a 911 tape in the Trevor Martin case was the last straw for me. The "news" folks have gone beyond substituting opinion for reporting, now they're actively and maliciously altering the facts they're reporting.
This weekend the Washington Post had an article on Florida's "stand your ground" laws which remove the "duty to retreat" in the event of a violent encounter or in your home. The opening paragraph on page one described a situation where a man who knocked on the wrong door was immediately shot by the homeowner. It wasn't until you got to page 9 and many paragraphs later that you learned:
The man who knocked on the door was drunk, and it was 4 in the morning.
This was the second time he'd been to the same (wrong) house.
The second time, he didn't knock, he tried turning the knob.
The homeowner called 911 and then opened the door, and the man retreated, but then tried to advance again.
The homeowner told the man to stop or be shot, more than once.
The man did not stop, but instead asked for a light, raised his hands, and advanced.
It's hard to see what the homeowner should have done differently. A trained and uniformed cop would have had some non-lethal alternatives (pepper spray, ASP, maybe even a stun gun) to use but the average homeowner is going to have only some sort of club, knife, or gun, all of which have the potential to be lethal.
Anyway, I was just highly annoyed by the way the story was written and the way it was published over multiple pages.
Context is everything, and the media has crossed the line between editing for size without affecting the context (much) to deliberately editing to alter the context to fit their rating needs or views.
The Christian Science Monitor used to have a pretty good rep for accurate reporting, I'm going to have to go read it and see.
Me too. 
