A bit OT but here is a great chance to illustrate one of the most common types of journalistic bias- the use of modifiers to compel a specific interpretation of a statistic.
I don't know the exact number but let's say 990 people died. If I have no opinion or if it's not central to what I want to get across, I'll say "990 people died." If I (as Nashvegastiger obviously does) that it is insignificant and highly acceptable collateral damage, I'll say (as he did) "Less than 1,000 died." Believing as I do that it is way too many and would have been largely avoidable with a brighter populace, I'd say "Nearly 1,000 people have died."
It may seem like an insignificant change, but I assure you it is effective in moving opinions. I once tested the concept on two high school English classes as part of a talk I gave back in the 70's. And I can also say that not all journalists who use it are doing it consciously. If you immerse yourself in a story and do the research, you're bound to form an opinion and it's difficult to keep that from coloring the way you write. And it's not always a bad thing. For example, in climate change there are different shades of one story; there are not two stories and to present the crooked or crackpot deniers opinions on equal footing with independent scientists would be a disservice to the readers and a dereliction of your duty as a journalist to inform.