It's no secret that the media tends to twist and distort the "facts" to present their philosphy as prevelant on any given issue. Conservative vs. liberal, right vs. left, north vs. south, newspapers vs. television vs. internet; they al slant the "truth" to display the personal "belief" of choice.
From the "Principles of Journalism" at Jouralism.org: "Democracy depends on citizens having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful context. Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but it can--and must--pursue it in a practical sense. This "journalistic truth" is a process that begins with the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts. Then journalists try to convey a fair and reliable account of their meaning, valid for now, subject to further investigation. Journalists should be as transparent as possible about sources and methods so audiences can make their own assessment of the information. Even in a world of expanding voices, accuracy is the foundation upon which everything else is built--context, interpretation, comment, criticism, analysis and debate. The truth, over time, emerges from this forum. As citizens encounter an ever greater flow of data, they have more need--not less--for identifiable sources dedicated to verifying that information and putting it in context."
The philosophy above dictates presentation as the goal of a journalist, leaving the truth for tomorrow. How many newspapers, how many sources, I wonder, must I read/encounter to determine the truth?
It is no wonder confusion and controversy reign in our society. How many versions of a single story do you read before you determine the "truth" of the matter?