Agreed.
The Long n' Short of this is I think it is Cool the way the Media has Labeled this as a Serious Problem caused by Vaping.
Verses what it Really was. A Serious Problem caused by Someone putting something into a Vape Cartridge. And then Selling it on the Street to Teens.
But I just that is what the Average Media Outlet Media Does? Chase Clicks via Hype on things they feel they can Throw Under a Bus. And Downplay (or just Not Report!) things the might Hurt a Cause or Agenda they want to Promote.
Like the Legalization of Something.
I mean... Only 420K+ people Die EVER Year from Smoking Related Illnesses. And Smokers are just 2nd Class Citizens anyway.
So No Need to give a Balanced Report on some Breaking News. If it means getting 100 Less Clicks. Or if it Points Out a Problem with something you would like to be thought as as Problem-less.
I agree. But I do have to add this. The pattern of the press creating news to sell more papers, more viewers, more clicks, has existed for well before both the internet, 24 hour news cycle cable news, or even TV or radio. Look at newspapers in the 19th and first half of the 20th century. That's how they operated. The newspapers that were viewed with greater authority and validity came from a handful of sources. You also had news agencies known for impartiality that supplied stories for their subscribed papers, leaving it for the individual paper to set the political/moral tone of their publication. Sure, AP and Reuters are still around but a far less influential as authoritative sources of news.
What is different is the speed of dissemination and the lower cost of entry to the press "club". Set up a website like Drudge did and you're a news source and become credentialed press. Same with the Huff Post and many others, all with clear bias in their selection of topics and the optics provided. Editorial and news are blended together rather than clearly separated. Opinion pieces run next to news stories with almost impossible to locate designations, so someone's opinions becomes "facts". The days of an editorial page with an op ed across from it are few and far between. Now we jumble it all together, and allow the tone of what is news to be set according to policy than newsworthiness.
The press has been influential in politics for a very long time. Editorial endorsements carried weight. Now it's less so. But someone like Rupert Murdoch is cut in the same manner that Hearst was a hundred years ago, and utilizes his platforms to advance his world view. And with the need to fill a 24 hour cycle with "breaking news", well, a lot of creativity is required.
This isn't new. It's been going on since the first newspapers were published. What's different is it's no longer a print media, it's multiple media sources with very short turnaround time of getting a story out and keeping it fresh, and the cost of entry has dramatically dropped thanks to a website and enough buzz to generate those clicks.
When TV news, then live cable news came along, newspapers were threatened of always reporting the story the day after it happened, unlike the same day on video, and decreasing in relevancy. Now the websites churn out new material within moments of the event, without even much time or effort into making it understandable, just dumping it out there. Combine that with the echoing on social media, and this is where we now are. But the fundamentals of editorial bias to generate sales/ads/clicks is as old as news reporting itself.
