Editing the News: Why and When???

Over the weekend I read a very interesting article on the New York Times website about how journalists have been extremely cautious in their choice of words when discussing our current economy. As a spokesman for the Wall Street Journal said, writers are avoiding words like “panic,” “pandemonium,” “apocalypse,” and “crash.” But what I found really interesting was a comment made by Andrew Server, managing editor of Fortune magazine, who said that, although they are still spreading the news “very carfully,” he wonders, “How do you say ‘There’s panic out there, but don’t panic?’ And is it even our responsibility to say, ‘Don’t panic.’? ” (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/business/media/22press.html)
It is certain that the choice of words a journalist uses can spin an article in one way or another, and in this case writers are doing their best to maintain stability in what seems to be a very volatile economic climate. My question is this: why is the media so tentative with JUST economic issues? Why is it okay for the news to pussy foot around our current financial crisis, and in the same breath tear apart the character and families of those in this year’s election?
It seems to me the difference in these two situations lies in the media’s knowledge of their own power over the American public. Realizing the media’s “authority” on the complicated economic issues in Wall Street, and understanding the media’s power to shape the concerns or calm the nerves of the American people, journalists are taking the time to self edit and curb potential “pandemonium.” In turn, I believe that the media doesn’t see itself as such a strong force in influencing in the election…why would these journalists be so biased and uncompromising if they did? Perhaps they want to shift their public’s opinions to their own…but isn’t that why editorials were created? These are all just questions I am thinking about and would be interested to hear some of your input.