I agree with you. In fact, my father was a print journalist in the 30’s, 40’s and early 50’s. By the end of the 50’s as I would talk to him about newspapers vs TV news (which was coming into dominance), he expressed the view that TV reporting was qualitatively different in that there was so little time and so few words available to fully explicate the story. So, what he was seeing (and describing to me, thank God) was how the TV stories were highly selective in what they showed and explained and a very high proportion of the time was devoted therefore to making a value statement (vs. making a full reporting of the facts the focus with the “editorial” content very limited and usually very indirect). He told me that during his time, people went to the newspapers for a full story that could be relied upon to be truthful and to provide needed background and context. The audience might hear about a story on the radio, but they went to the newspaper to get the full story. But by the early 60’s this was beginning to change, he said, because newspapers were beginning to respond to the competition by becoming more like TV and radio in the “depth” of their reporting.