"INNOCENT" vs. "NOT GUILTY"

Compare the above article, which uses the legal term, "Not Guilty", to this article:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/19/D8DB6JD80.html

which used the term, "Innocent." While preparing for work this morning at home, every cable newscast that I saw claimed that Saddam (still don't know why we call him by his first name) pleaded, "Innocent." I wondered if the Iraqis had established some sort of retarded legal system that required defendants to prove their "innocence." I am relieved now to learn that the Iraqi legal system sensibly employs the term, "Not Guilty," and that it is only reporters who are retarded. (They probably all have "journalism" degrees.) I suppose that since we can't get reporters to discern between the correct verdict/plea "Not Guilty" and the nonsense term, "Innocent," there's no way to get them to stop using other nonsense terms such as:

1) "The fact of the matter is... prices have increased." What's wrong with simply saying, "Prices have incraeased"?
2) "You are basing your policy on THE FACT THAT Hurricane Katrina only harmed blacks, but actually it harmed even more whites." Why would you refer to a claim that you dispute as a "fact"? Oh, I forgot: you have a journalism degree. Correct: "You are basing your policy on the ASSUMPTION that..."
3) "Senator Biden will join Sara and **MYSELF** after this commercial." How about using the break to brushup on your grammar?