It shocked me that such little effort was made to actually find out what happened before reporting it as fact to the public.
I actually think that they would be less likely to do that today with social media.
The next day we successfully (and safely) made it back to the campsite from which we'd started only to be met with reporters and cameras looking for the story. Basically, they wanted some quote, from somebody, that they could use to pin-point the delay onto a single person, and exaggerate the danger that we were in. The fact was that we decided to take the least risky option in the face of unpredictable, extreme weather. The reporters didn't think this was enough and there was a multi-week long witch-hunt to try to blame it on trip leaders, despite the fact that no-one was harmed (if we'd chosen to continue the climb out in the horrible conditions we faced, then someone would have very likely been harmed).
This was my eye-opener to how the media operate. Instead of "Group of young adventurers safe from freak storm" it became "Irresponsible trip leaders cause near-death of youths".
If it won't sell, it's not news.
I taped the news broadcasts that evening on multiple channels. Each TV news anchor recounted a different set of facts, all them wrong. It was an eye-opener for me. And it wasn't even a case of any agenda, it was just laziness and doing as little work as possible.
It makes me wonder how much we think we know about history from the history books is completely wrong.