Porforis properly proffered:
It's more or less the new requirement for journalism in any form. Reality is boring and complicated compared to sensationalism that preys on confirmation bias and outrage.
And driving sensationalism leads to the creation of Pseudo-Events.
The concept of a pseudo-event was first discussed in Daniel Boorstin’s 1961 book, “The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America.” Boorstin was a historian at the University of Chicago and headed up the Library of Congress.
Journalists did not used to come up with content. In modern times, however, Boorstin says that responsibility for making the world interesting shifted on to journalists, who resorted to making up news through “pseudo-events.” Boredom does not sell papers, or websites, ergo the need for something to report upon. Pseudo-events are the stories generated from speculation, allegations, questions, and non-sequiturs that saturate the media market these days. IMO, they are typically set up with the dual goal of having something as click bait, and to set-up a discussion to push an agenda.
‘Pseudo’ comes from the Greek word meaning ‘false’ or ‘intended to deceive.’ Boorstin explained that with the advent of round-the-clock media, the news gap soon became so narrow that in order to have additional news, so-called, for each new edition of each new broadcast, it was necessary to plan in advance the stages by which any available news would be unveiled.
With more space to fill, the newsman had to fill it ever more quickly. News-gathering turned into news-making. They leak a story, or quote an un-named source, they write about it....the story itself becomes the event worthy of reporting.
Journalists creating pseudo-events and pushing agendas are why the press is viewed with a jaundiced eye...whether they are in Green Bay or Washington....and why free thinking websites, like this one, are so great.
In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK