The media sucks.
You have to work hard to get the real story and I think that's a shame.
One of the many many elements of suckitude is that I think individual reporters get tied to a narrative, and then they don't want to be "wrong" -- that is, they suggested something (or outright claim it) and then don't want to go back and say "um actually not so much." They want to be prescient and quoted and stuff.
Matt Bai at the NYT has really irritated me with that, he was very pro-Clinton and has always kind of looked askance at Obama, suggesting portentously that he couldn't win, first (I think he was behind some of the Latino stories when that was a thing, ya know, Latinos won't vote for Obama), and he keeps coming back with snark that rarely has any particular substance to it. He has a narrative, which is "Obama can't win...OK even though he won he shouldn't have, Hillary would've been better," and that leaks through his so-called "reporting."
And that's the New York Times, which is the only paper I subscribe to because the local paper (Columbus Dispatch) is REALLY bad.
(I'm not 100% certain I'm thinking of Matt Bai, I plugged "Matt Bai hates Obama" into Google and came up with this, which is still making the point that a NYT reporter is sloppy, whether my details are correct or not:)