Just sane, no?
It is sometimes hard for the layman to judge just how biased the media is (are?) as the reporting of recent boating accidents is dealing with fact as far as it goes.
The one area where I have noticed reportage that falls apart like wet dunny paper is in the dealing with narcotics. First they invariably take the lazy, cowardly and imprecise route of referring to all psychotropic contraband as 'drugs' without acknowledging that there is a significant difference in the pharmacological effects. They also conveniently fail to note that legal substances like alcohol, tobacco and prescription medicines, have wreaked as much havoc as heroin and incalculably greater havoc than grass.
Having an agenda that states idiotically that 'drugs are bad', they then proceed to report the incidence of elite sports stars, actors, musicians, authors, and other prominent figures taking "drugs" and how this is a source of embarassment and wretchedness for them.
Here's my question to you: if "drugs" are so bad, how is it that athletes can break records while taking them, songwriters can compose works of genius, models can take the catwalk by storm and so on and so forth? Far from being an advertisement for the deleterious effects of the stars' substance of choice, it is the exact opposite; a glowing endorsement.
Perhaps if they examined the degree to which there was a perceived benefit but this undermined by mitigating factors, it would appear as less of an ideological barrow being pushed.