Nah. They are veering more and more to celeb news because the morons in the focus groups turn their dials to “like” when famous fluff comes on and to “dislike” when anything requiring brain cells appears.

Or is it economic? I have ranted before, about the "news" running advertising dressed up as "news". Just recently, the "news" was aflutter about some new program that Walmart and Sam's Club are offering. Was that "news", or paid advertising?

Going out in the world, finding facts, and reporting them, is expensive. Running stuff handed to them by a "celeb's" publicist is cheaper, they may even be paid to run the stuff. Example: After several years not performing, due to some health issue, Celine Dion is now trying to relaunch her career. Some weeks ago, all three networks were atwitter about her falling down during a performance. It was impossible to miss the "story". She was on stage, tried some silly move, her foot slipped, and she fell. Were all three networks carrying this because they thought it was "news", or was it paid publicity for her career relaunch?

Amanpour usually runs three or four segments. At least one segment, sometimes more, is someone promoting a book, movie, or documentary. "News", or advertising?

Steve