Journalists still pursue stories aggressively. The difference is that in the 1960s and 1970s, the stories they pursued in politics surrounded things that mattered like wars and Watergate. Today, the only stories that journalists will pursue aggressively are rumours that Obama is going shirtless on a beach. Having spoken to editors of journalism sites before, I'd have to only partially blame that profession for the change. Readership numbers validate and promote this behaviour.
If you want to fix what's wrong with journalism, perhaps we need to start in the classroom by encouraging a culture that values literacy. Yes, science and math are also important, and they've been getting attention. But being able to read and write lengthy essays then debate them is also important. IMHO people flock to the stupid journalism stories because they don't have the comprehension skills to understand what the meaningful stories' implications for them are.
This suggests a more practical remedy to political abuses - more checks and balances and a weaker multiparty system (avoid centralization of power). The Bush years stand in contrast as to the difficulty of effectively holding abuses of power in check when a single party dominates almost all branches of government.
If you want to fix what's wrong with journalism, perhaps we need to start in the classroom by encouraging a culture that values literacy. Yes, science and math are also important, and they've been getting attention. But being able to read and write lengthy essays then debate them is also important. IMHO people flock to the stupid journalism stories because they don't have the comprehension skills to understand what the meaningful stories' implications for them are.