🚀 go-pugleaf

I don't think you can say (sweeping generalization) that monetary
concerns drive those decisions.  Growing up with journalists both in
print and broadcast media, everybody has limitations (cartoonists as
well as writers, directors, etc.).  All have tried to keep some degree
of professional idealism.  I also know this from correspondence with
various people in the field.  You only need write them (hardcopy:  Don
Hewitt, Paul Conrad, etc.):  they all read their mail, and if you aren't
too hostile, if you remain rational, they will write back.  The better
journalists would quit (I know one who did) if they thought news was
being compromised.  I have had extended correspondence with some of
these people, and in Conrad's case an offer for lunch should I ever
visit the LA Times.  I am certain as you get older you will run into
more and more media people.  Ask them.

If you want to get a feel for some of this, the husband of an old boss
wrote some fiction novels:  "Freeze Frame" and "The Face Out Front"
which make light of some of these decisions (Robert R.  Irvine) (also
lite humor as well).  He used to work for KNXT and KABC News in Los
Angeles.  Old episodes of various TV programs gave hints (but limited by
story lines) of some of these problems.  Bob cites "Lou Grant" as a
reasonable example.

We are getting a bit away from computers, but I doubt networks can do
much better.  They have some advantages where speed is concern, but they
can be less accurate.  The broadcast media do have their advantages in
events like earthquakes, radio more so than TV up to a point.  But I
doubt people would worry quite so much about a soap than say historical
events.  This is getting away from computers.

e. nobuo miya