Sorry about the lengthy, off-topic reply here, folks:
I won't generalize about "most media people", but it was quite obvious that the author of that article had an agenda. The unfortunate accident was the result of a parapalegic driving a car not suited for his capabilities--NOT the car. Yet, the author didn't hesitate to inject the SUV acronym or sport utility vehicle term throughout the story. The phrases appeared no fewer than 10 times in a rather short article.
As Bill Clinton taught us, if you say something loud enough and often enough, the masses will believe it.
Instead of saying "SUV" or "sport utility vehicle" 10 times, the author should have said "STUPID DRIVER" 10 times, to reinforce the actual fault. Calling the SUV a "vehicle" or "car" would have been more fair and balanced, and would have gone a long way toward deemphasizing the SUV as the culprit.
I remember a news story about a 90+/- year old woman who drove into a building in the NY/NJ area about 10 years ago, and the main emphasis of the article was on maintenance history of that particular car model (it turns out there weren't any problems with the car), and not on the capabilities of the driver. So often, the story doesn't follow the obvious trail, but tries to make excuses or find others at fault. Why is that?