>>>>All this travelling looks as though it is agreeing with you. NOT. <vbg>
>>>>
>>>>>Yes, I've always been told I look younger than I am.
>>>>>
>>>>>Me, too.
>>>
>>>I think it's about time that outfits calling themselves news companies (TV Radio Paper et al) should report the news and stop trying to change people's thinking by "analyzing". Just tell me what happened. I'll make up my own mind.
>>
>>You do know that it's never actually been that way, right? Newspapers have always had a point of view. Back in the days when even small cities had multiple newspapers, typically you'd have different ones representing different political points of view.
>>
>
>I'm not sure I agree. Publishers and editorial pages have always had points of view. Reporters used to at least strive for objectivity a lot more than they do now. This trend has been accelerated IMO by the emergence of "non-traditional", i.e. non-newspaper, news media. Entertainment value has become more important and "just the facts, ma'am" less important.

No, reporters still focus on "just the facts". But they're a dieing breed and they work for "editors" and "producers" who have agendas.

These days the "news" is flooded by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck who, if backed into a corner, will admit they are not journalists at all. They are entertainers. (As are Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann on the other side.)

But they ply their wares on "news" networks that aren't news-focused at all. They're entertainment-focused.

Newspapers have always been the same way. There is a difference between "a murderous rampage using a house, a broom, and a bucket of water" and "The Wizard of Oz" even though the story is the same. News organizations have always skewed to the ratings grab.