Quality and integrity of reporting has given way to "Immediate Breaking News" sensationalism and a war for ratings. The internet fuels it as well as fights it. Add to that the bias that is present (usually with politics...on BOTH sides...but on other issues too) and "reporters" (using the term loosely here) and bloggers (I won't call them reporters) feel no obligation to be impartial, and would rather kiss corp management .....
The stories of a minor find for DEG in one particular manufacturer's e-
juice still echo
through the halls of the media as "E-Cigs contain bad antifreeze". The media, had it done it's job, would have refuted the FDA's extreme stance on e-cigs easily. I'm not at all sure that the "power$ that be" don't grease the wheels on these things.
The digging-for-information bit has always been shady, but it's gone to a new level thanks to technology. Look at the scandals with Murdoch and crew.
It's all for the ratings (which result in advertising $$). We, the viewers/readers, are left with little to no choice but to click on an article and see what it says. That ups the ratings. Doesn't matter that after we read it, it's complete crap.
I think there are still some respected sources. They are fewer and farther between. Fairness demands that I mention that the media is often as much a "tool" as a culprit. Manipulating the media is a profession in and of itself also.
).
