The most recent and egregious example in my mind is the Kavanaugh hearings. This story captivated the country (because the media chose to give it that much prominence, almost in lockstep) and was presented in some ways as a mystery - what happened to Dr. Ford 37 years ago. Many in the media insisted on or reported on the demand for a "complete investigation", and they spun the story hard against Kavanaugh despite the lack of corroborating evidence.
However, there was corroborating evidence, and that evidence was in the Senate record for weeks. There were 2 men who claimed in great detail that they were involved in an interaction with Dr. Ford at about the same time, in a house that fit her description, at a small gathering, even describing her clothing - and that their "make out session" was interrupted by one man 'dog-piling' on the two people on the bed. With all the media intention, the investigative reporters, the analysts and the talking heads - not one of these mainstream media outlets reported (or if they didn't give it any weight) on this! It's shockingly poor journalism to have ignored this fact. They were willing to smear Kavanaugh for political purposes that suited their partisanship in ignoring the distinct possibility that Dr. Ford simply misidentified the man she encountered. If it was a small story some details could be left out but this was a huge story with major national implications and an allegation that severely damaged a man's reputation.
They wanted us to "believe the accuser" despite the lack of corroboration - and kept repeating this demand for a complete investigation to find corroboration - but the corroborating evidence was there all along. It corroborated her story almost to a T, except however as to the person she accused. It was worse the dereliction, and too big of a story to have been overlooked. They deliberately, intentionally refused to report on this corroboration because it did not suit their agenda. Had they reported this, I think that the country would have overwhelmingly realized that Dr. Ford was simply mistaken as to whom it was she encountered that night. Along with the several other problems with her story, this evidence would have given much more reasonable doubt than just he-said she-said benefit of the doubt.
This example, in my mind, exemplifies how the media is completely partisan and willing to use their power - much of it as I wrote above derived from unfair business practices and self-interest - to push an agenda rather than to report on the news and seek the truth.
Aside from your valid point, Ford was testifying to a “recovered” memory. Usually, as in this case, “recovered” during psychoanalysis, “recovered” memories are factually unreliable but fell WRT their targets. They are devastating to their targets because the memory - not the lack of scare quotes - is absolutely indistinguishable to the rememberer from a true normal memory. Consequently the rememberer is a very convincing witness. The “witness” is not lying - just not relating actual events, and absolutely ignorant of that reality.“Recovered” memory is however an artifact of the process which produces it and not dispositive of any actual past event. The acceptance of testimony of a "recovered memory” - because that testimony will be so sincere and presumptively convincing - is tantamount to accepting in court the process which elicited/constructed that memory. And that process, if actually conducted in court, would have the defendant’s counsel screaming “Foul!” because that process itself is a violation of due process and the presumption of innocence.
The defendant gets abusively prosecuted first in the mind of the subject of psychoanalysis, and only afterward in court with due process apparently firmly in place. Tho, as you noted, in the minority of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and in the Borg known as the Associated Press and its membership, “due process” was not much in evidence.