I enjoy reading, or hearing about a story from multiple sources, just to judge the reporting. NPR spun this one yesterday with an emphasis on how the situation is so much worse than we originally thought, since CDC revised its estimate of cases upwards of 40%, with minor mention of the stabilizing data, and saying we have to do a better job with the African American community. The SF article you linked pushes the “give us more money” meme. Todays Washington Post, emphasizes the “We’re doing a good job” narrative, since the policies implemented are having a positive effect:

Updated federal estimates of the annual number of new HIV infections in the United States, released yesterday, reveal that although the AIDS epidemic here is worse than previously thought, prevention efforts appear to be having some effect.

So, depending on the reporting, different narratives from the same source of data. As you’ve said before, how about reporting the information, more 5 W’s and an H, and let the reader decide how to interpret the data, rather than finding an angle that tells us what it all means. Minimally, people should be taught how to read a newspaper article with a greater emphasis on critical thinking.