It's a sales-driven industry, not a truth-driven industry.
Whatever sells. Whatever gets the hits, the comments, whatever there is most mileage in will make the papers. However, it's undeniable that there are a few in the media that show obvious bias - the ex Liverpool players on Sky/MOTD and then the sideline roles that follow from that, the ex Arsenal on Sky, and whichever writer is treated nicely by whichever club, they are obviously going to be friendlier about those clubs because it's either their team or they have a relationship that needs to be maintained. The opposite is also true, if there is a bandwagon to jump on they will fall in line like a flock of sheep - like, say, kicking AVB when he was down during the Chelsea period or Juggins going at AVB for showing him up at a press conference.
Most are quite balanced in their views, in that they will go after a club over an issue if they feel there is some value in the story (sales value, not defender of truth and justice value). Some of the research is quite poor at times but it doesn't necessarily mean they are out to get anyone, either it's been cut by a sub or the writer just isn't very good (and doesn't need to be).
I do wish the standard was higher though, in all forms of media. Most of the time it's a load of recycled, exaggerated or fabricated crap and it amazes me that people still buy/read the papers.
Fans of all clubs say this from time to time, because, from time to time, there is something to get at that club for. The saturation of stories feels like a conspiracy and then the last time something naughty was said the whole catalogue of events are reopened.