[Brad from Tennessee]

“When Woodward and Bernstein broke the Watergate story, journalism schools became jam-packed with students who wanted to change the world. However, The job of a reporter is to report facts, not to change the world.”

These students who wanted to change the world were, for the most part, anti-Vietnam babyboomers who had all seen Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman—armed only with typewriters and telephones—take down the whole Nixon Administration.

Prior to Watergate, print newsrooms included much more diverse groups of people who didn’t all think alike and run in a herd.

Since Watergate, the industry has attracted a lot of neurotic people seeking power, perhaps to compensate for perceived or real inadequacies. This has resulted in a collective news product that conveys a neurotic view of the world.

[Tenacious 1]

Then again, we are seeing a few break out media sources and outlets.

Look what Fox has done by breaking from the herd. Matt Drudge anyone?

Ironically, the less liberal media outlets seem to do better than the others.

If anyone knows, I would love to see side by side comparisons about readership for the Washington Times Vs. The Washington Post and NYT.

Does the trend follow in print journalism?