Virtually everyone I've known, either in real life or on the internet who has first-hand experience with a newsworthy story says the media got it substantially wrong.
In some cases, it appears that they don't even try.
Compare this news story
Rocky River: Metroparks visitor settles dog fight with gun
with this version:
Dog Killed: Family Pup Shot Execution-Style While Walking With Owner In Metroparks.
From what I've been able to figure out: A man with a concealed carry license was walking his lab puppy in the park. Another man was walking a rotweiller, apparently an adult dog. The rotweiller got loose--According to its owner broke loose chasing a small animal. The rotweiller attacked the lab puppy (confirmed by the police) and after unsuccessfully trying to break up the fight, the lab's owner shot the rotweiller twice.
In my admittedly biased viewpoint, the first story is a bit anti-gun, but it at least includes more of the relevant facts.
The second version is astounding in its bias. No mention at all that the rotweiller attacked the other dog, or even that the shooter had a dog--Making it sound like the gun owner shot a loose puppy for no good reason, then ran away. (it is more likely he ran due to his "duty to retreat" from a confrontation with the rotweiller owner) Old photos and video of the rotweiller as a puppy, making it appear that the dog was still that size.
It would have been reasonable to bring up the legality of shooting the rotweiller-It isn't a perfectly clear situation since the rotweiller was attacking another dog, but I think the lab's owner will be able to claim he was in fear for his own safety, making his actions legal.
(HT to David Codera)