The MSM, from my personal experience, may lean left to right from region to region or from writer to writer, and one or the other philosophies may dominate; but one thing is almost universally true: the media is almost wholly sensationalist.

This isn't the fault of the writer, mind you, or even the editors, but of the demands we place on them to create headlines that will attract our attention.

One area where the sensationalism of  the media comes out is in sentencing guidelines. Many years ago, I had my own encounter with the criminal justice system, and although I haven't been back, it was enough to disspell many myths about the system that most law abiding individuals beyond the law profession usually do not know.

When the media announces a possible sentence for someone who has been convicted of a crime, for instance, they almost always state the maximium possible sentence. The fact is, very few people qualify for, and fewer people receive, the maximum sentence, which is based on a complex number of variables, including aggravating and mitigating circumstances, one's criminal background, etc. I was going to post an example using the Richard Hatch scenario, but to tell the truth, the guidelines were too complex for me to figure it out.

Plea deals (which don't apply in Hatch's case), and the impact on one's family (which do) can be taken into consideration by the judge, and usually the only person to see a maximum sentence is a hardened, remorseless criminal, a standard which certainly doesn't apply to Hatch. The prosecution phase of the trial, used for determining guilt or innocence, is where the protestations of innocence are often heard the loudest; if Hatch has even COMPETENT representation, you'll see a contrite, apologetic Hatch at his sentencing hearing. My guess is that Hatch's sentence will be close to what Martha Stewart received: five months to a year incarceration, possible house arrest to follow, and a few years' probation. With a HEFTY fine.