Fired U of I official claimed unfairly singled out

The Des Moines Register on Tuesday printed an article regarding two top University of Iowa staff members being fired.  Sally Mason, the president at U of I, fired these two top officials after an independent report came out critically analyzing their actions after a sexual assault last year involving athletes.  One of the staff members fired, Marc Mills, vice president of legal affairs and general counsel, said he was unfairly singled out by the report by Stolar Partnership.  He thought that the U of I board should have got more than just one highly critical view of the situation.  

Regardless of if the two should be fired or not, the fact that the University of Iowa fired them after the report was written less than a week ago just seemed like they took the information without thinking of who wrote it and their biases.  The report was very critical of the two's actions.  I just wonder if the report wasn't as critical, if these two people would still have their jobs.  The report writers had a lot to do with the outcome for these U of I staff.  

In general, writers hold a lot of power with their words.  If they are bias or raise a certain issue, and the other side isn't there to fight back, a writer, like of the Stolar report, could potentially affect the lives of those they are reporting.  I think reader/consumers need to be aware of the context of every text.  I don't know if reading the report for Sally Mason affected her decision to fire the two or not, but it seems like, from the reading, she was persuaded a little.  But by me deciding this, it means that the newspaper article swayed me into thinking that.  It seems like a never-ending cycle.

There doesn't seem to be any way to not be influenced by the media.