For years I read the Courier-Journal every day. I hated missing a day. The paper has gone steadily downhill for the same reason all of them have: reduced revenue caused cutbacks which reduced quality which reduced revenue which caused cutbacks which reduced quality which reduced revenue which... well you get the idea.
Suffice it to say that the quality sunk low enough that I no longer minded missing a day, and now I rarely see it.
Today, though, someone showed me an article about a local employers' summit meeting/symposium on health care costs and health in the workplace.
Featured prominently were quotes from my company's CEO. His point was that the workplace health iniatives instituted at the same time as our high deductible health care plans have made employees healthier. His 'proof' was our lowered BMI, a reduction in our number of medical claims, and a reduction in the monetary amount of our monthy health care claims.

So I was forced to send an email to the writer of the piece of ____ article, asking if he'd bothered to ask any of the likely follow-up questions, such as
1) How do you know employees' BMI have dropped? Where could you possibly have attained this information, other than pulling it straight out of your ___?
or
2) Is it possible that reduced claims are not the result of better health, but rather the result of the fact that employees have instead chosen to forego proper medical care because they CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY THE HIGH DEDUCTIBLE?
____________________________________________

Why, you may ask, did I 'bury the lead' on this post? Why start a rant about my employer with comments about the newspaper?
Because it's not a rant about the employer. It's a rant about shoddy reporting. A CEO's job is basically to get as much out of his workers for as little cost as possible, while spinning it with positive publicity. So our CEO did a stellar job, ____ though he may be.
The reporter's job is not to just print whatever self-serving load of ____ the CEO hands out. He's supposed to actually verify it.