With the rise of documentary propaganda films being made and available on the internet (for example, films that deny that HIV causes AIDS), and just the general rise of soundbite culture where people don't "stay tuned" nor do they "tune in at 11:00 for the details" and instead just get their information from the many streams of media soundbites circulating the atmosphere, does the media have an ethical responsibility to avoid misleading and provocative headlines/soundbites?

With the example of the HIV denial film, a misleading headline from a science magazine was shown as a part of the films main argument that scientists don't know if HIV causes AIDS, and that there is evidence against it. The film goes no further than the headline and the first paragraph.
Since the films release, the science magazine has since changed the misleading headline to something that more accurately reflects the contents of the article.

However, the damage has been done, and this misleading headline was used in a film that advocates that HIV is government conspiracy, and that if you have tested positive for HIV, you probably aren't positive, and you shouldn't take medications because that's the true cause of AIDS.
Surely the dangers of this extreme example of propaganda should be evident.

But should the media only be more responsible with their headlines and soundbites for just news related to HIV/AIDS? Why not everything? Why shouldn't the mainstream media be held to higher standards of decency and responsibility and of "promoting the common good"?