One off cases and speculation off newspaper clippings is hardly science.

The media (and politicians) are not particularly known for portraying the state of science or statistics accurately, indeed, they veer towards sensationalism.

Some right-wing rags are known to spread rumor, hearsay, and to misrepresent things, particularly when it pertains to a "hot issue" political issue.

I've seen reaches which might even arguably be defamatory, in some countries, where they really toned up the paranoiac lens to try to demonize someone.

I've also seen very clever wording and strategic omissions which seem intended to mislead someone.

Then, there are outlets which only appear to read another's headline, or which quote another with even less context.

Even a media outlet operating in better faith might not be aware of details and might regurgitate things they might have "heard of".

There is also a bias involved where the media might pick up a matter or case, precisely because it is so unusual or grabs their interest.

Trying to generalize such sensational cases to what typically happens misses that point entirely.

In fact, Demonizing Sexual Minorities 101 is where you go through to dig for that one weird bizarre case, perhaps involving crime, air that out in a media outlet, and slap on a negative framing.

What that ignores is that every population has some degree of crime, and it doesn't logically follow that because there is some bizarre case, that an entire population should be demonized.

Even in that case, a media outlet can omit information which doesn't contribute to a particular frame, and might even contradict it.

Even they own up to it, expect it to happen in what is virtually a back channel, and to be discussed among a small group who follow such corrections closely.

A media outlet is also not typically doing an exhaustive search.

They're doing a quick search on the premise of what sources they know of, and getting an article out the next / same day.

They also have to do this for a number of different subjects where these might differ.

This is particularly problematic, when their source might be a politician, or someone with a strong opinion (but little substance to that opinion), an opinion which might be very wrong.