News media has been disinvesting in news reporting. It may seem perverse, but it's true. Reporting can mean a lot of money spent for accuracy and context, which is a big ask if that's not what your customers are paying for. So while you might think reporters are ubiquitous, they're more in the position of smiths who make horseshoes. The profession exists, but it's marginal. Most stories you see in the neverending news cycle are based on other stories, or nothing.
Pundits have held on quite well, though. Maybe because they tend to become recognizable brand names, which is valuable in a crowded field. But that may wind up being a case of diminishing returns, as it can be hard to tell one from another.
This story compiles a number of instances of journalists crossing over from factual reporting (to the extent they ever did that) and open advocacy. But what does it mean to take a stand when everybody takes the same stand? There's a large number of media figures who share the same opinions on what stories need to be shared and which can be swept under the rug. Pretty soon they're only talking to each other, plus a small cohort of "civilians" who agree. Which of course the voting base of the current President.
Then there are more florid examples. It's tempting to say that Siegel read the Rolling Stone "dominatrixes vs. vaccine hesitancy" story so you don't have to. But I did read it and found it painfully insipid. It's an attempt to make a familiar narrative sound new and exotic, maybe even erotic. Well, that last part really doesn't pan out.
Are “trans women of color” and “dommes” genuine authorities in America? No, but they are made into public idols that real power can hide behind. In theory, these totems of the marginalized are being “centered” by social justice movements that overturn historical power structures. In practice, the dominatrix, stripped of all authentic erotic power and allure, becomes a new kind of patriotic hero defending the civic virtues of the American middle class.
Perhaps a bit ironic, that.