First, let me begin with a disclaimer. I don't come from some major publication; I am just the News Editor of a small High School Newspaper. However, as they say, from the humblest of beginnings can easily come something great.
When, as a news editor, I'm looking for a story, my mind is quickly attracted to the sensational, the brigh flashy news that is gobbled up by the masses that get their news from such upstanding publications as the National Enquirer. And, while this news looks attractive on the surface, it quickly becomes apparent that, in the process of building a respectable legacy that I can leave on to my successors, I cannot publish those types of stories, if solely for the fact that many of them are of dubious truthfulness. Consequently, I'll be the first to admit that the majority of writing talent that I direct is not what the typical news-hungry reader would consider top-notch, or anything like it. I believe this is a major problem that we face in today's national media, as well. The vast number of major publications and the relativiely dwindling number of really, truly good writers on the market today means that many editors, like myself, have a difficult time choosing deep, meaty stories for the simple fact that many of their writers simply cannot present the stories in a decent fashion. (Or, at the least, that is the problem that I have run into) I can assure you, (and my paper is only published monthly) I have to serve up what I like to call "home run" (in other words, very, very easy to hit) stories, simply because I don't have enough talented writers to make it all happen.
Now, what does this mean for the average person who doesn't read or write the news? That means that when I'm looking at stories, the single easiest thing for me to pick out as an editor is a scandal involving a someone in power. Now, it doesn't matter if I'm in agreeance with this authority figure or not, the simple fact of the matter is that a story that criticizes the principal of my school, or the superintendent, or a local politician, or even in some cases, a major national politician, is all juicy fodder for my writers. Why? Two reasons are readily apparent: One is that they don't have to work, think, or write too hard to make the story work. In some such fashion, these stories tend to write themselves, and the reporter is simply along to guide the form and word usage. The second is the fact that as a reporter (and I've been one of those for a while, too) there are few stories that are more attractive than a good "stick it to the man!" story, as I used to call them when I was writing.
That said, I do tend to try to avoid those stories in my paper if at all prossible, despite the leanings of my (increasingly) liberal teacher and fairly conservative Lead Editor. All I wanted to say is that this is my point of view; from someone who writes (and, occasionally, despite my best efforts, makes) the news. I'm not sure if anyone can really use this, but from my point of view on these types of things, I would wager that for the most part, the major television news channels (FOX and CNN) tend to be moderate to conservative, while the majority of major print outlets tend to lean towards the left (i.e. Washington Post and New York Times). The internet, however, I believe could trump them all in short time, as not only a wide degree of ability and angle come with it, but also the ability to combine both video and print together (and the two different levels of reporting those represent) mean that the other two major media outlets could be rendered ineffective.
Just my two cents.
