Quote Originally Posted by Atticus View Post
The point was for the author to get clicks [[and associated ad revenue) from writing a story that implies something nefarious is going on, when in fact there is no real evidence to that fact. Welcome to the 21st century journalism of the Freep/DetNews.

If the author had in fact dug deeper, facts come out that turn 99% of these stories into a “nothing was done wrong” article. Of course a “nothing was done wrong” story doesn’t generate clicks, so what incentive is there for the author to dig deeper? If the author is lazy, doesn’t ask the next question, and just churns out the story, some money is made on the clicks. Why ask the next question if you probably don’t want to know the answer? Ignorance is bliss.

I guess I did get the point then. Sad, today's "reporters" are becoming merely click generators.