Here's a Classic Example:

Politician bruised in polls faces anti-war journalist and knows what said journalist wants: an admission that the journalist's bee-in-the-bonnet issue was responsible for his party's bad election result. Also, conveniently, it makes defeat more manageable if it can be blamed on one transient factor.

So, the journalist takes the 'admission' and broadcasts it at the face value he was pretty keen on from the start (he's a Labour supporter, after all).

But, the reality is that the Tories did best in the local government elections, far outstripping the anti-war Liberals in seats gained from Labour, as well as councils (the Lib-Dems lost control of more councils than they won). And, as you probably know, the Tories supported the war in Iraq. Nice work, impartial BBC.

[Update: England's Sword has similar thoughts. Also, when I said 'seats gained from Labour' I was talking statistically, not geographically. All I mean is that the net gainers in terms of seats were Tories, who happened to be fairly solidly pro-war, whereas the net losers of seats were Labour, and the peacenik Libs were somewhere in-between. To look at BBC reporting though you'd think that Iraq was the issue above all. Ian Murray has some thoughts about where Iraq fits in to a broader picture that make sense to me.]