In his current column, John Leo criticizes various media outlets for "mangled quotes." He's really too generous. One very prominent example makes the point well:

The AP quoted Scalia as saying he has "nothing against homosexuals." This misquote was endlessly recycled in news stories and commentaries, usually to mock Scalia for a gay version of "some of my best friends are Jews."

What Scalia actually wrote was this: "I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means." He wasn't offering his feelings about gays (he is on the non-touchy-feely wing of the court). He was talking about the rights of all groups to organize and lobby.

To say that a quote was "mangled" suggests that it was an honest mistake, just simple incompetence. Are we to believe that this was the case here? This quote was "mangled" in a very precise way that gives it an entirely different meaning than what Justice Scalia clearly intended.

To put it differently, the AP writer clearly and intentionally LIED to make Scalia look bad. Considering how high-profile the case and comments were, the same judgment should go against most of the other media that endlessly echoed this lie.

It may be perfectly acceptable for a reporter to have opinions, and even to express them. Great, have at it. Be honest and truthful, though.

It doesn't take very many instances of absolute dishonesty to undermine a media outlet's credibility.