When you have three hundred and fifty newspapers all write about the same thing in the same way, well, that's called skewed coverage.
And it is meaningless.
It reminds me of the recent flap over NYU professor NYU Philosophy professor Avitall Ronnell who was suspended after a male student accused her of sexual harassment. There was an open letter signed by all sorts of other professors who thought just because they socialized with her and she was book smart, that no way could she be a predator.
Yes, a authority mob ganging up on someone speaking out and protecting the one accused of misusing authority.
There was an investigation done by the university, and Ronnell was suspended. Her ways were found to be predator, and you could have had reams of signatures supporting her...and it would amount to nothing.
Because one has nothing to do with the other. It is classic PR firm-type strategy of getting people to sing your praises to deflect attention away from your rot.
And editorials today were playing the same game.
Journalism never had to be in this position. If they made changes they needed to do, oh say a quarter century ago, this wouldn't be happening.
Instead, like slacker students who crib from other test-takers' papers to pass a test, this choreographed spectacle is just a PR stunt, nothing more.
It is all about virtue-signalling and halo-wearing all while pretending to be knights who somehow are also damsels-in-distress and they need audiences to play knights to rescue them from an ogre meany.
No, journalism needed to be saved from itself.
If you just did your jobs and reported on facts on the things that actually mattered, you would still be relevant.
Get over yourselves...