Even so, any number of factors can contribute to a story being biased or inaccurate. Journalists are fallible, and despite the most noble of intentions they can often bring to their work a degree of prejudice, or just plain sloppy investigation. A news reporter is often working against a deadline, with very limited facts. Even a good story can be amputated by editors and attorney. The trek from word processor to final airing, be it in print or on television, the internet or some other medium, is a long, precarious one.
Articles can get massaged, edited, changed, butchered and re-written in the process.
The whole tone or direction of any article can vary dramatically depending on who happens to be interviewed, which sources are used, and a slew of other intervening factors. As anyone who has been interviewed for a story knows, all or most of what you say rarely is included, and what does find its way to print can often be taken out of context. I m thinking of one story in particular, an account of the Murray O Hair disappearance that appeared in a trendy magazine lavishly illustrated with uncomplimentary photos and an abundance of copy that was equally critical. That seemed a bit unlikely at the time of the article perhaps, and is even less likely now. One doubts, though, if there will be an apology, retraction or correction now or in the future.