Yes, reporting on discrimination usually presents only one side of the story, because the person who presents the story has their own opinion of what the outcome should be. Look at how unfairly George Zimmerman was treated. He was found not guilty in the end. The journalist paints a narrative based on what they want you to believe.
Reporting is always biased in one way or another, and far too often, there are shades of the story that are left completely untapped. Most of the time, this is because shock value sells better, and sometimes that's just the way things play out. Sometimes the story is accurate, but more often than not it is exaggerated.
Quite often, any reporting about discrimination is by it's nature biased. Usually the person reporting on the subject has strong feelings one way or the other, usually in favour of the person being discriminated against. It is almost impossible in cases like this to show both sides of the story equally.
Reporting on discrimination usually occurs when a person feels like they have been treated because of their race or status.
Often, they have actually been discriminated against, but more often than not I feel that social or racial biases play into the picture. People tend to justify their actions an reactions based on how they expect someone to respond or act towards them (before they actually do).
In the end, most of the time, there discrimination cases are two-sided, but sometimes they are legitimate.
For many discrimination stories I don't believe there are two sides to it, especially if the discrimination has been proven. I think the other side is often just excuses made by racists or people who hold stereotypical beliefs. In general, I believe the news does a great job of reporting both sides of most if not all of their stories, including those involving discrimination.