I suspect a lot of it is driven by the decline of the financial health of journalism as well. I think this sort of story is often one that fits the prejudices o

I suspect a lot of it is driven by the decline of the financial health of journalism as well. I think this sort of story is often one that fits the prejudices of a lot of readers (certainly the author of this article is arguing their perspective was omitted because it did not fit expectations) and is likely to be popular. That lines up with a lot of research about how peoples like having their existing beliefs confirmed and are resistant to being challenged. I imagine that, if you are a journalist who won't do this kind of piece on occasion, your numbers suffer and you either need to be very good at your job, or you suffer professionally and are more likely to leave. So a lot of the journalists who stay are ones who often can do good work, but also do some hack work sometimes on some topics. I think a reason this seemed less common in the past (or maybe just less obvious) was we had a very different media climate with less immediate feedback. Internal opinions on the quality of work probably mattered more - and you had less opportunity to see how many people were clicking on your colleague's story an hour after being published.