Most media works on the principle of "shock, horror, probe" headlines just to attract attention.
You will often hear (every day on the venerable BBC!!!) a headline like "The government is about to fine everyone £1000 for walking on the cracks in the pavement" , only to be followed a few seconds later by "That's according to claims by a nutter living in a cave in Arandistan". They ought to begin with the credentials of the source but of course that would dilute the shock, horror, probe effect. "A nutter in a cave has claimed that the government are doing something dreadful" doesn't have quite the same impact. The BBC don't need to do it, but they still do.
It's quite easy nowadays to be very selective and economical with the "actualité". Our political parties' PR departments aren't above editing video to make chosen victims look bad.
Quoting statistics is probably the most misleading, nothing wrong with stats but without an understanding and using them in context you can demonstrate more or less whatever you want.
