I'm getting tired of misquotes and selective quoting that accomplishes the same thing

I have friends and relatives who are in mourning and friends and relatives who rejoice at the outcome of the midterms, (I am neither because.... I was going to say "what will happen will happen," but I think we all know our political process is more about things not happening.)

But after avoiding some news sources for a few days, I am now just ticked off by agenda-driven editing, deliberating misrepresenting what was actually said so that the listener/reader will draw the conclusions that will support the speaker's/writer's positions.

I am ticked off by the presentation of subordinate clauses as statements, I am ticked off by substituting new subjects for verbs that were clearly describing the actions or state of being of some other subject, I am ticked off by outright lies and/or misinformation printed as fact.

I watch xfgto^M@s... what's that, girl? Timmy's down the well??!?!?... no, I'm just ashamed to mention the name of the reality show in question.

Himself, who has no interest in xfgto^M@s nonetheless regularly, if I should be watching it in a room where he is, gets sucked in by personalities and interactions, yes, but mostly, as am I, by clever editing -- yes, that person said those words, but not in that order, and not in respect to that.
And that "reaction shot" in the promos that makes it appear as if someone wants to kill the speaker in the previous shot? more likely is a reaction to, say a stubbed toes.

But that kind of dishonesty? I think, I hope most people know reality television is no such thing, and the actual general tenor of what goes on is eventually made clear, and besides, it's just entertainment.

The governance of the most powerful nation in the world is a bit more important than that.

And the goings on in the apparatus that was left us by Christ in order to accomplish the work of His saving grace, that is His Mystical Body?
That's a  d-^@&$%(%#@^!$*-ed sight more important that that.

John Allen talks a bit about this problem here, though I think he is being a little dishonest in positing equivalence between the fracas over what a German cardinal did actually say and  the dishonest claims of what an American archbishop clearly did not.

Himself often thinks I am challenging him when he states something and I ask why he thinks so - I can't seem to to convince him, I am not questioning his thought processes, I am curious about his source, whether he is presenting knowledge of opinion and whether he has actual information of which I ought to avail myself.

Primary sources, people, PRIMARY SOURCES!