That's interesting. I'm not sure what you point is. I think it reinforces my point that news in the past wasn't necessarily more informative. I'm not really sure though.

That it has never lived up to being the bastion of truth and democracy it's sometimes made out to be, it has always been about getting eyeballs and selling ads.

These examples are more "sensational" than negative, but it is essentially the same idea.

>it has always been about getting eyeballs and selling ads.

And setting the record straight, where "straight" is whatever the powers-that-be want.

We even have an age old saying for this: History is written by the victors.

Historical records, and by extension journalism, have never been concerned about recording the facts. They have always been concerned only about defining the narratives and truths for the powers of the time.

> A few examples; the Titanic was never called unsinkable until after it sank, no one committed suicide on Black Friday as a result of the stock market crash, and there was no public panic caused by the original War of the Worlds radio broadcast. All of these things were reported by the media at the time.

Why should I believe you, a random person on the Internet?