Doesn't the author refute his own point when towards the end of the article he admits that it has become very rare for reporters to actually research those things? Also, he only provides anecdotal evidence when he says "no blogger was trying to cover this". There are probably countless other offenses that no newspaper reporters are trying to cover, either.
I wonder if newspapers and other media overestimate their power? They would like to think that they can sway public opinion, but maybe ultimately they are simply forced to write scandalous stories, but they can not manufacture them. Like they can make a lot of money out of "Britney Spears cut her hair", but maybe if they tried to make a big fuzz about that police incident, nobody would care and nobody would buy the newspaper anyway.
He's making the point that newspapers don't do this anymore, either, and that there's very little chance of newspapers starting to do things any better, which is a problem.
I wonder if newspapers and other media overestimate their power? They would like to think that they can sway public opinion, but maybe ultimately they are simply forced to write scandalous stories, but they can not manufacture them. Like they can make a lot of money out of "Britney Spears cut her hair", but maybe if they tried to make a big fuzz about that police incident, nobody would care and nobody would buy the newspaper anyway.