But that's the point - it can be interpreted in different ways.
I think the point is you interpret things in cmpletely different ways than normal people.
What would you prefer exactly? That they trawled his photo albums for all the ones where he was cackling in an evil way, pointing and laughing at graves, rewatching footage of 9/11 with a big tub of popcorn, ones with devil horns on his head?
Yes.
I actually don't know whether this is all an act and you just like pretending to be a d!ck, or whether you are genuinely this way, and looking for flaws and faults in things and making a big deal out of them is actually your thing - but either way, it's really really boring.
There is no ambiguity here. This is not a grey area where large swathes of the audience may get the wrong idea about something that was pretended in a vague way, or where there was a specific agenda to mislead. No intelligent person would interpret this kind of montage sequence as any kind of attempt to elicit sympathy for the gunman, nor would any reasonable mind believe that the input of psychologists would be another part of a conspiracy designed to make viewers feel sorry for the man.
The only possible way that I could even conceive of drawing such stupid conclusions would be if someone had never previously seen exactly the same kind of reporting on any number of previous occasions and outlets, and if that person were watching the report that you mentioned with the sound off. Under those circumstances, I might be able to accept that someone might see the images you described appearing as some kind of tribute, and that the graphics showing the presence of a psychologist might lead you to believe that this is a sad tale of a well liked person who died heroically perhaps - but if you're actually listening to what's being said, if you appreciate the context in which the montage is presented, and if you listen to what the psychologists have to say, it's pretty f#cking obvious that this isn't a piece about how much we must love this man; it's a routine "they walk among us" package that the news outlets roll out whenever something like this happens.
I'm pretty sure that similar packages were used for the 7/7 bombers, for example, and I'm sure that other users could reel off any number of other examples.
There is no conspiracy to lessen the disgust and contempt felt towards the man, and there is no room for confusion about how one must feel towards him in how his story has been told; it's just a tried-and-tested method for news outlets to tell audiences about the people behind the crimes with some framework of explaining what possible reasons those crimes were committed, and it's one that audiences are very familiar with.
Now, it may not be a particularly elegant or innovative way to communicate those points to the audience, but it does work, it's commonly used, and it's many many millions of miles away from being anything like "irresponsible reporting".
I'm having difficulty believing that you're too stupid to understand that already, but this kind of nonsense that you keep spouting is certainly lending weight to the notion that - at the very least - you are entirely lacking in any form of common sense.
But I was trying so hard after sstripling's harsh words.