Don't ask me why, but I've just sat through one of Michelle Malkin's amateur news casts (and I use the term amateur in its most commonly accepted sense, not the recent warm-fuzzy sense). She goes on and on about one of her favourite topics: racial profiling is good. The point she attempts to make is that we should all be suspicious of young Muslim males because they are the root of all terrorist activity. Her strategy to do this is to parade a series of terrorist activities before the viewer and point out that they have been enacted by young Muslim males.
Her statements may be precise, but as she makes no attempt to look at the population of terrorist activities or the distribution of ethnicity, gender and age of the suspects, they are meaningless.
Let's imagine that there are 100 terrorist plots. 90 of them by old ladies from Skye and 10 of them by YMM. I could certainly say: look here are 10 plots, all of them by YMM - viewer beware! However, I'd be far more efficient in nailing terrorists if I zipped up to Skye and interviewed all the grannies.
In general, when 'facts' are presented through channels like this, one doesn't have much real hope of finding out if they are true or not. However, one can always inspect the form of the statements and the context in which they are presented and determine if one is being presented with some precise, but highly biased, (potential) information.
(Of course, Islam isn't a race but a religion.)