[GreenMan]

Zelandakh, on 2013-June-07, 00:56, said:

And do you think things are genuinely different now, or just that journalists make greater efforts to expose skandals? An early Canadian example (from wiki).

Speaking of U.S. news media, which is what I know most about: Journalists love a scandal and always have. They have more reporting tools available these days e.g. databases and public-information laws. The "watchdog function" is baked into many journalists' DNA. However, those norms and practices are not the only influence on news gatherers: for instance, their bosses tend to be businessmen who don't like rocking too many boats. And if you cover a subject such as national politics long enough you start to get cozy with the people you see every day and tend toward less oppositional reporting. Those and other factors influence which and how much scandal and "scandal" you see in the press; it's not a simple equation.

[Zelandakh]

GreenMan, on 2013-June-07, 02:02, said:

Journalists love a scandal and always have.

There are many examples from the past of skandals that have been widely known but never reported to the public. It is also certainly true that even now there are many potentially damaging stories that do not get reported.

[GreenMan]

Zelandakh, on 2013-June-07, 02:51, said:

There are many examples from the past of skandals that have been widely known but never reported to the public. It is also certainly true that even now there are many potentially damaging stories that do not get reported.

Yes, and there are many reasons why some things get reported and others don't; I mentioned a couple. If you're interested, the seminal work on this topic is Deciding What's News by Herbert Gans. Media sociology and journalism studies are rich fields of inquiry, and I couldn't do them justice here.