Okay, that's a harsh and unfair generalization. But it got your attention, right?
And that's precisely what I really hate: a certain attention-grabbing mentality that's popular among the media. For instance, when they have a story about a new book on Francis Dickens, Charles Dickens's son who went to Canada. Most of them figure that they can't just say "there's a new book about Francis Dickens"; that's not sensationalistic enough. That won't get hits.
So they say things like "Charles Dickens wasn't a great father" and "Charles Dickens was one of England's most-respected writers during the 19th century, but he wasn't much of a father." Because, again, it wouldn't be sensationalistic enough to say "Charles Dickens was a very flawed but very loving father," which would be much closer to the truth. Or even "Charles Dickens had high expectations of his children, but that's not necessarily a bad thing." That would be way too much nuance and complexity.
So I guess the moral of the story is, if you're famous enough to be written about two centuries from now, don't dare have any expectations of your children, or the press will have to haul you over the coals for it. And pun on the titles of your books as they do it.