I think the difference might fall withing the range of their bias. If they're biased against a certain subject (such as President Bush, for instance) their reporting will reflect that bias because they've never learned journalistic restraint. They think they can report their opinions as if they were facts. They think they can change their reporting if the facts don't fit their opinions.
On a crime story, they usually don't have a dog in that particular fight, so in general (emphasis on "in general"), they will report a story as it is, with some factual errors usually related to carelessness or laziness.
They can be very inventive, though, when concocting stories that suit their political bias.
I don't disagree with you. I was just speaking from personal experience....I could turn a 5 hour public hearing into several cohesive 90 second stories without a problem.....crime stories, were a different story. For some reason I just never could get a handle on the "right" questions to ask.