I agree with Bosk, but I just want to add that I also despise how the level of journalism has slipped. We used to have Walter Cronkite, and even in the "celebrity gossip" area, Rona Barrett, who was a JOURNALIST, even if her stories were light weight.
Now we have regular Joes, comedians, out-of-work waitresses, housewives, etc. who "blog" and think that they are now trained, skilled purveyors of fact. It doesn't work that way. I think the best example of this is the plethora of headlines that read "[So-and-so] did [this] and the Internet is [extreme emotion]".
I watched a Dr. Phil last night - don't laugh, I love that guy - and it was about a woman who live-streams her entire life on YouTube. The woman is clearly deeply troubled - Dr. Phil offered to put her in a facility for 90 days, which is relatively long for the kind of problems he sees on the show - but it touched on the point that "easy" is not always "better", especially when "easy" is meant to cut out the IMPORTANT steps, not just the inefficient ones. The reporting of facts HAS important steps that can't be cut out.
I'm even at the point that I want to go back and read that article about the girl. We have become so sensationalist that I don't even take that at face value, that somehow 22 men just completely and over time disregarded their morals, their conscience and their context to sexually assault someone that they KNEW and could adjudge was disabled. Pseudo-journalists have become very lax and careless with how they assemble facts these days. ANY sexual abuse is inexcusable, but the order of the facts is important.