Beginning observations

As I've been learning throughout the semester, there are various ways in which the media chooses to distribute it's information to us. One of the things that I have noticed is the collective perspective that articles and news stories take over time. What I mean is, each time a newsworthy event happens, some one reports it, and there's a story. Usually, stories are written so that you get the gist of what has happened as quickly as possible. But based on the idea of fragmented bias, if you were to put all of the articles of a certain story together over time, how much information would be missing? I think that this sort of bias transcends the news sphere and affects the way we look at history, and even the way we learn. When politicians cite historical events in their arguments, they use the events themselves to their advantage, despite whatever context caused that event to happen. Of course, I would never expect a politician to do otherwise, and so should no one else. But when large numbers of people believe everything that is told to them, word for word, for over 30 years, it sort of becomes a  "paper truth," until the truth is uncovered through research. So when people bring up the police brutality issues, and the responses are mostly statistics and trends(i.e. black on black crimes, poverty, the usual stuff), no one considers the context, or *why those things were that way at that time* People use these responses as isolated incidents, with the expectation that these retorts are good enough to end any argument of the opposite persuasion. Furthermore, the same people that do this use context to defend their arguments, which is I guess as expected of them. I understand that it's unrealistic to expect people all over the country  to put forth the effort to find their own facts. But when it gets bad enough that it spreads from media, to education, to everyday living, that's when it becomes a problem.