Not op, but: > You think the same about United... Yes. > ...and now American? Dunno, haven't heard of it. Probably. > Perhaps it just that the outraged min

Not op, but: > You think the same about United... Yes. > ...and now American? Dunno, haven't heard of it. Probably. > Perhaps it just that the outraged minority now have a louder voice. I don't understand the mechanism you're proposing? You're insinuating that this "minority" is today no larger than it was for...similar scandals in the past, I guess? Then why would readership for news about said scandals rise? How does loudness factor into this? Does Uber go to 11? Anyway, you're wrong on the simplest of facts. It's not a minority: "Pollsters found generally negative attitudes toward United, with 47 percent viewing it unfavorably. Twenty-three percent see the airline favorably." (http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/aviation/329687-poll-voters-prefer-united-airlines-to-trump http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/aviation/329687-pol...) > There is a financial benefit for them writing negative articles, outrage/scandal draws in viewers. And to think that for centuries, we trusted journalists without ever noticing that they were paid (paid!) to write what they write. It's basically corruption! And now that I think of it, I can no longer trust the baker! That corrupt flour-power-wannabe is taking money to make bread!