Seriously, they do. They spin them in weird ways, though - I remember in 2007 (or early 2008), they had an article about "the bin laden trade" - someone bet $30M or so on a very improbably collapse -- Or so the article inferred based on highly irregular "put" purchase -- losing $30M if that didn't happen, or winning billions if it did.

The data was, in fact, factual. However, they failed to account for alternative explanations, e.g. that someone (probably a pension fund or a hedge fund) was moving a lot of money into the market, and was buying insurance -- a much more likely explanation for the same data.

They do stick to facts. It's their analysis that you should reserve your skepticism to.

1. The government releases a report with an important indicator looking good

2. Mainstream Media cheers, telling us how good we have it

3. ZH looks at the report and notices that:

   - the number was "seasonally adjusted" once, then again 

   - the number will be revised down, a month later usually on a late Friday at happy hour

   - pesky details: employment growth is in part-time, minimum-wage jobs

Some people may choose to call the above rumors or "sensationalism" - feel free to ignore ZH, it is a free country.