A slightly out-of-place "JMO" regarding the reliability of the print media (it came up a fair bit overnight)---
I worked in a major metropolitan newspaper for seven years, including a couple of years in the fact check/research library. Not only was there a full-time staff of many degree'd research librarians who were constantly pulling data from both hard-copy and digital sources (ones you have to pay for, not google) to assist the reporters/writers, the emphasis at that particular paper on checking and checking and re-checking every verifiable fact was phenomenal. When a correction had to be run, it was like a mark of shame.
Now, that was 10+ years ago and the print media has of course been massively impacted by the internet. But that particular workplace of mine had the highest level of integrity and work ethic of anywhere I've ever worked. ESPECIALLY when a child had been harmed. I assume that today's large newspapers, especially those that still have a print edition, still function somewhat on that model. It's not just one person ticking away at a computer, blog-style, and writing whatever sounds good at the moment--there is a team of editors and researchers behind a big story like Sunday's Denver Post writeup.
Because of my experience, I do give more credence to large news organizations with a print edition than I do bloggers/facebook/cable and local news *TV shows* (who just care about ratings) etc, but they all have quite a challenge with this case--not a lot of hard fact to go on, very few press conferences by LE, and a whole lot of rumor and speculation.