I still think of "The Wall Street Journal" and "The Economist," two of my favorites, as being _careful_ in their reporting (careful is different from unbiased). But my main focus in this thread was on the _styles_, and this I think is more explained by faddishness.
And advertising. To get "mind space," as with "shelf space," the packaging must entice, fool, and trick the reader.
This might can be tied back in with Tim's other RANT about prozac/ritalin/Haagen Daas/[insert your favorite mood altering substance here] and ADD. Today's kids supposedly can't concentrate on anything for more than the duration of a music video or the first "act" of Baywatch. But it's all just simpler to dope them up and let 'em watch Pamela Sue jiggle than try to raise them properly.
Yes, and many of the newsletters we're seeing--as many are cc:ed or forwarded to our list--are the kissing cousins of "zines." Same faux style, same emphasis on "flash" over substance. (Not all of them of course.)
But media in general is becomming a meme-eat-meme world. If you don't entertain enough to hook the reader they won't bother with you (and your meme never propagates). Who cares if CSPAN is broadcasting hearings on changes to some law that could fundamentally change American society as we know it, there's an infomercial on for that amazing new flameproof car wax that cures baldness and predicts the future more accurately than Dionne Warwick. The Sci-Fi Channel needs to update their "Max Headroom" episodes from "20 minutes into the future..." to only about ten (if that). Now where'd I leave my Zik Zak . . . :) --- Fletch __`'/| fletch@ain.bls.com "Lisa, in this house we obey the \ o.O' ______ 404 713-0414(w) Laws of Thermodynamics!" H. Simpson =(___)= -| Ack. | 404 315-7264(h) PGP Print: 8D8736A8FC59B2E6 8E675B341E378E43 U ------