[I submit that question above as a less vulgar substitute for “Does a bear shit in the woods?”]
Just sat down a while ago to wake up to what we laughingly call “the news” while cuddling my dog and drinking some Italian Roast to get my brain functioning, sort of. As usual I wandered aimlessly among CNN, Fox News and MSNOW to gauge the difference in emphasis and tone, while jumping back periodically to check with the MLB channel’s morning round-up of yesterday’s baseball games.
The second I landed on CNN, I was told that a new HUD policy put forth by…THE EVIL TRUMP ADMINISTRATION!!!!…could put thousands of homeless people “including many veterans” back on the street. HUD wants to transfer billions in funding from permanent housing to temporary housing, which means, CNN kind of explained, two-year residency. BUT, the grim-faced reporter said, many homeless would probably leave sooner than that. A judge has halted the policy’s implementation after a law suit—of course—but the report simply regurgitated what the complaint from homeless activist organizations alleged.
What they alleged, CNN appeared to believe, is the only way to see this situation. All CNN did was quote the plaintiffs’ filings. Why does HUD want to change the policy? We got no information about that at all. I have other questions: what are the benefits of “permanent housing” as opposed to “temporary housing”? What is “permanent housing” anyway? If someone is in “permanent housing,” why are they still called homeless? If they leave temporray housing before their time is up, why wouldn’t they leave permanent housing? Will spending money on temporary housing rather than permanent housing serve the homeless population better? Will it serve taxpayers better?
Ethics Alarms 
This is also how they report on the Iran war. They report what the Iranians say as gospel and discount anything we, you know, our, the U.S. government says. Similarly, the headline is always “Iran Launches Missiles at [someplace or something].” Of course, you have to read way into the article to find that all or most of the missiles were knocked down by anti-missile systems. This was how they reported a missile being lobbed at Turkey. It turns out the missile was knocked down, as reported in the text. And for good measure, the article concluded by noting three missiles had been shot into Turkey’s air space years ago. So, the story was, as the Democrat operatives would say, a nothing burger.