There is little I find as unsettling as the state of journalism today. The exception might be how easily this inept reporting is absorbed and relied upon, but the laziness of the journalist tops the list. Case in point...
A report was made that several districts in Philadelphia voted 100% for President Obama in the last election cycle. Most readers read just the headline and were rightfully appalled, as it seems impossible and extremely fraud like that impossible statistic could be realistic. A great news source would then apply the process of asking who, what, when, where, and why to the story line, so the headline might be accurately backed up with facts. Very few take the time to leave the comfort of their laptop to delve into the facts behind the headlines so the reader is misled, herein lies the problem.
You see accurate on site reporting discovers that the precincts noted are only a couple of city blocks, and inhabited by a strong minority population. The scenario becomes more likely with just this information alone, but there is more to ask. How did this precinct vote the last two election cycles? Where you able to comb the streets and find any voters who voted opposite of the reported tally? Was there any push by the republicans to promote their candidate in these precincts? Was there a "get out to vote" ground game effort by the democrats that proved effective? What is the mood of the people in the precinct? None of these questions can be answered from behind a laptop, they all require effort.
This is where journalism is lacking. Apathy toward a story line leads to misinformation and that's what the reader is influenced by. Find yourself a news source that digs out the tough answers and takes the time to ask who, what, when, where, and why. Seek on site reporting, because the truth has no agenda. It merely informs you.