Because journalism is (and almost always has been) a commercial activity, rewarded (nourished) by advertising sales - as determined by ratings and (in print) subscriptions, "we the people" are getting the journalism we deserve.

I used my experience as a journalist (for the Honolulu dailies and Newsweek) to learn how to write fiction; never let the facts stand in the way of a good story. I went on to write detective novels and thrillers; it was fun writing stories without feeling guilty about making stuff up. As Tom Wolfe once said, working for a newspaper is like spending time in a whorehouse; you work the fat off your style. I think it would be fun to hold an experiment in which all mainstream newspapers and television networks agreed to eliminate the following words for one day: could (Oh?); might (Really?); analyst (A guy with a cold beer?); expert (Say again?); source or sources(Psychics?. Eliminating those stories would save a lot of newsprint and maybe prevent some papers from going bankrupt. I could make that list of banned words longer. Suggestions out there?

You guys are too funny. I'm watching Chris Matthews(the sunday show) and he's all salivating at the lips- WHAT IS BIDEN GONNA DO? WILL HE AND HILLARY HAVE A KNOCK DOWN DRAG DOWN.HA!. And I'm like any dingbat with a set of tubes that make up the internets would know that the Bidens and Clintons are close and that Biden said in numerous interviews, he was not interested in a porfoilio-only for Barack to listen to him. After someone points that out, Matthews goes apeshit and says Oh I didn't know that- that's news to me? And I'm thinking, can I be a journalist. I am so glad this series of tubes exist(except Politico), because I would be out of mind in doom and gloom Obama scenarios.

I was shocked and dismayed to find that none, NOT ONE, of the Lehrer team was invited.

The thing is clearthinker, I don't think that the blogs could never be close to perfect as the papers. There accountability somewhat matters, any joe dick and harry can write a blogpost and call it news. My problem, is the oversensationalization of actual news. The story should be the corruption of Blag, not how it taints Obama, or as Blag would call him, Motherf'er. It kind of reminds me of soap operas, which are supposed to be the oversensationalizement of real life. Everyone has drama in their life, but the soap operas over play. The news or networks are becoming close to that. You should never speculate on what you don't know- as my dad would say those who make assumptions usually make asses out of themselves, but yet they do on AIR. I like Chuck Todd because most of his reporting his based on a metric system, that anyone can independently verify from the numbers. I don't know what the hell is going in chris matthews head, except sugar plums running through.

Walt Disney used to tell his staff (the men he paid on the same level as Thomas Alva Edison): SHORTEN AND EXAGGERATE.

It really never occurred to me that all the news that's fit to print referred to the typesetter's problems in getting the message to fit the page.
WWS, I shall take that to my grave.

If you have no life like me, and will from time to time watch four straight hours of news on cable, you find that it can become the same show with the same 'big news', the same 'odd news', and even the same slander and libel.

Three hundred million people supposedly live in this country. Thirty thousand people die on the highway, thirty thousand people die as a result of gunshots, four hundred thousand people die of cancer......

There are so many stories out there to cover. Couldn't 'they' divy it up better than that?

ALL THE NEWS THAT FITS THE PRINT SPACE.

We iz all jernelists now!

Everything has become entertainment! Remember the invasion of Iraq? Does anyone recall how 9/11 - a terrorist event - became "Attack on America" by the end of the day? By the end of that day, yes, there was something like a "title" on the screen. I honestly recall thinking... wait a minute... but nobody waited! They hyped it to make it appear as if we'd all been attacked.

This is the same thing I referred to the other day when I described the bizarre experience of being in a freezing building (in a recession) with gew-gaws being hawked on a network morning program turned shopping network.

Something is very, very wrong - at the heart of our society - a country that's becoming nothing but a purveyor of PR hype - divorced from reality.

There is a simple solution to the ghastly state of affairs in "reporting" today - and the time you spend complaining could be put to better use helping to restore the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. Nancy Pelosi has already said that she'll bring the issue forward after the inauguration, but she'll need your support. Google on "Fairness Doctrine" and you'll see how you can truly make a difference.

The diarist said "It is a sad day for many Americans, who thought that they could trust the judgement of reporters to decipher between real news (like the economic downturn, torture, wiretaps and things like that) and fake news (like sex scandals, money scandals, pigs, lipstick, houses, kindergaten letters) ... "

Fake news is what draws the masses around the TV, and other media. It is what increases media profits. Its like the car accident on the side of the road where everyone slows down to take a look. It is a reflection of who we are.