I hate the way news outlets report on Prehispanic archeology and history: They always make it out to be extra macabre pointlessly.

This is a more subtle example, but one that sticks out to me is how the BBC reported on "Aztec altar with human ashes uncovered in Mexico city", the implication being it was this gruesome shrine with human ashes and burning flesh, and it's literally just an urn with the remains of relatives kept in a household, which isn't even particularly uncommon today in the western world.

Another I can't find the link to, but it was a bunch of burials found somewhere in the Andes, where the article was titled something like "Gruesome mass child burial found", and even though the burial of people was a relatively minor part of the finds with also a ton of jewlery, art, and other things being found, the article was almost entirely focused on the mortuary remains, and in a throw away line conceded that there's no evidence of sacrifice and they seemed to die of natural causes.

It's absurd: If these sorts of finds happened in Greece, Egypt, China, etc, the entire framing and what the articles focused on would be different. They'd spend WAY more time on the tombs, artwork, and the like, and frame the remains as being honoring the dead rather then making it out like it's some perverse death cult.

Even stuff like sanitation gets thrown under the bus: An Aztec noble villa and bathhouse got uncovered a while back (and I wrote up an extended multi page writeup on Aztec hygine, medicine, and botanical science in response ), and half the sites reporting on it call it a "sweat lodge" and acting as if it's a tiny hut rather then a richly painted urban construction and acting as if it's primitive mumbo jumbo rather then a piece of hygienic infrastructure.