It used to be called "editorial credibility". It was the back bone of being a magazine or newspaper. It allowed you to get advertisers because you would be thought of as a resource for what is truly going on.. you had the inside scoop. Now it's just about having a story and how fast you can get it out.. if it turns out to be correct then you are the man.. if not then your "sources" were wrong. It used to be that you would be given some inside information.. you wouldn't dare report it until you got a witness to validate on the record or some other proof. Now they use "source" or "unnamed source" as a cover to just make something up and grab headlines. People are tried in the court of public opinion with only one slanted side of the story out to see.
As a member of the media, it is embarrassing how far the industry has fallen and that the people that read it allow themselves to be persuaded by people who are printing half truthes and slanted bias editorial and to just go along with whatever they read. People are sheep that believe what they read now days and they media preys on their stupidity to accomplish the agenda for whoever is greasing their palms with cash.
