In the comments FixYourThinking said:
... you can't do what they do - "cherry pick" stories that aren't verified.
You must state a goal, intention, or caveat emptor if you report like that.
While not mandatory, the SPJ code of Ethics for journalists says:
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.
[MEMRI] Being a funded organization, I take it that they present to "investors" [funding sources] that they are a news organization. Again, if you claim you are a professional journalism source, you have to wear the toga AND follow the law of Ceasar [Law Of Ceasar in this case=SPJ Ethics code]
You can't masquerade that you are reporting the truth by translating or biasly picking stories that no one else is reporting.
The only ethical, non libelous way of reporting is through self experience, filming, tape recording, or "ganging" (ganging = If CNN reports it, NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX report it) - ONLY after one of these criteria are met can one add opinion, editorial, or postulation without being slanderous, libelous and accountable for damages!
Therefore, that's why I make reference to a satire site ... are they just not referencing their true intentions as Landover does?
Technically, this story couldn't even be regurgitated without explanation and clarification ... especially with the Apple Store serving alchohol comment. That's not only libelous, that's blatant!