The killer paradox of media. For anything to be interesting, it can't delve too deep. Anything in-depth can't be interesting.
And thus the curse: any journalism must follow the pattern of telling anecdotes of one or maybe two representative cases. This lends a personal feel, but gets mired in the trap of "anecdote is not the singular for of data".
Reporting that is engaging is rarely informative, at least to people that already have a working model of the topic.
I think you can do in-depth and be interesting. Its just quite hard. You're never going to please everyone, but you can inform a wide audience without being factually incorrect. This takes an enormous amount of work, though, and so its hard to pull off.
And thus the curse: any journalism must follow the pattern of telling anecdotes of one or maybe two representative cases. This lends a personal feel, but gets mired in the trap of "anecdote is not the singular for of data".
Reporting that is engaging is rarely informative, at least to people that already have a working model of the topic.