Wouldn't this be more likely to mean that we shouldn't trust either of them?

Oh, yes. It absolutely is. I cooperated in covering a story once about - wait for it - a monthly rag in a retirement home in the pastoral surroundings of our Old Town. Their paper was facing certain operational difficulties, and might for the second time in a year be forced to go with a re- run of Gunda's legendary trips on the [roughly translated to low hills or perhaps hilly mews - it's very funny in Norwegian] or something similar on pages five through seven.

Well, this is apparently interesting enough for the local paper. So we're talking with the "editor" and his "assistant" for some time, drawing in the atmosphere of the place, and figuring out that this actually is not only about that their favorite writer has decided to spend his last years specializing in obituaries, but that their computer, a truly ancient one even compared to them, is the real problem. In fact, as the plot thickens, we realize that the commune(city council, really) is so cheap they can't even be bothered to spare one single computer that works so this rag can be published before the editor dies. Well, almost.

Now we had a choice as journalists. Should we print the facts? They are, let's face it, as exciting as watching resin harden. Besides, they can be fit in the header of the article. "Retirement home's Rag don't run - because City is cheap". And a big picture of disgruntled old guys around a computer(black screen). Regrettably, the message is not clear if this was to be printed. It could even be untrue. Add a few citings, and we could also be travelling into "inappropriate". And do we, or the readers for that matter, know how long ago it was they applied for support to their retirement home? Do the city or the state really have responsibility for their well being, should really our paper end up appealing for a new clause in the supportive measures old people should be granted, and should we really trust the old guys in the retirement home on this - the very people that would have everything to gain if our paper would indicate that they should have this computer? And did the editor(89) remember absolutely correct when he claimed he had appealed through "all appropriate channels"(dare we even ask for confirmation of this? Mean cursing, I tell you). Further obscuring was the fact that when I, who was mildly adept at fixing computers, insisted I could easily put their old computer right, was met with a stern look and told not to mind about it, even though I could pinpoint the exact problem. Could this be that this old fox tried to sabotage his old, but still working computer in order to have the city give him a newer one? Indeed, he seemed much too modern and too fond of digital watches for an old, venerable man, and rumour had it that he often would sit up late in the evenings playing "cabal"... And so on.

One solved this by avoiding anything that could be remotely connected to the computer conspiracy, and made the old men smile in front of their computer, rather than catching them in one of their frequent moments of deep thought or one of their cursing fits. The article was then filled with light language about all the good things the paper brought with it in the retirement home, and how much this simple thing did give them("life-quality" was used at least once). It was mentioned as a sidenote that they were now, regrettably, often facing difficulties with their computer - "editor" says the 'computer's too old, haha' (almost those words, I think).

I believe a brand new computer was dumped on their doorstep the very next day. So the government got the message, and the local paper didn't have to mention either that it had been called up by these angry old men twice a day for the last month in order to get their story printed.

I'm not sure, but I imagine most journalists in Iraq suffer from the exact same kind of problems(almost the same. At the least). What do you choose to cover, what do you choose to focus on, and how do you report it so people who do not see what you do will understand it? What do you do when you are unable to get enough info? Do you drop a good case because you can't seem to sustain it well enough, it being so sensational? Do you drop a case which will be akward and difficult for the readers? Finally, do you actually lie when you're avoiding to mention certain facts which will perhaps "emphasize" the more or less obviously wrong things? What about obscuring the right things? And do you personally in fact happen to see things in the right angle? Even in the pastoral mews, I can tell you this is a most serious issue. I expect it isn't a cakewalk in Iraq either.