This is funny to read, but please take it with a grain of salt. For instance, medievalist.net's story of Leo's murder is based on a single source, John Skylitze

This is funny to read, but please take it with a grain of salt. For instance, medievalist.net's story of Leo's murder is based on a single source, John Skylitzes, who lived more than two centuries after the events (circa 1040-1100, when Leo's death was in 820). Other historians have serious doubts on the veracity of this story. By crossing with other sources, though none is as detailed as Skylitzes' romantic prose, they try to distinguish the (probable) facts from the pure inventions (and the reality-inspired inventions). See "The Conspiracy of Michael Traulos and the Assassination of Leo V: History and Fiction", Dmitry Afinogenov, 2001 : the paranoia of King Leo seems more realistic than a conspiracy by Michael. It's historians hard work to separate the fiction from the facts, and to learn even from the fiction. One can try the same today: most modern media are less emphatic than John Skylitzes, but they can't always be right and neutral. Yet it's often very hard and time-consuming to find when a reporter stated a fact and when he exaggerated or wrote what he wished or was told.