I have decided that there are often times “breaking points” in articles written by the media where they could have just stopped writing. The article is essentially then broken down into two parts; the first part (the “news”) and the second part (the additional fluff “propaganda”). I believe the reason for the seperation is so that the author feels they “did their job” at reporting “just the facts, maam.” As long as they get that out of the way early the breaking point signals them to write about anything they want from that point on. Take this article posted today as an example. The news is clearly defined. Try and identify the breaking point. It won’t be hard.

Criminals and people accused of anything publically generally have breaking points in articles about them. I see the connection, I understand a level of relevance, but seriously. A man dies and they literally wrote about his step-daughter’s husband’s alleged doping.

Yuck.