Journalism is entertainment. They write the news they do because it sells. They'll sell news catering to and fitting our preconceptions. The obvious reason is because that is what we want to read.

The only time our preconceptions are challenged is in articles with that specific aim, and then it is clearly stated. People who like having their preconceptions challenged read those. It is called philosophy. It is a vanishingly small market.

I understand why that style of writing wouldn't be helpful in the news room, because it takes a lot of effort from the readers side to digest, and is the opposite of the goal of news. To give us information easily digestible.

The difference between high and low, is just what preconceptions are being catered to. Usually correlating with level of education.

It's very hard to judge somebody getting their news from evening press, if they don't have the prior interest and education to understand what's happening around the world. To somebody with no prior knowledge, national policies, wars and events in the world, will just appear to happen at random. At least that's how I saw it as a kid, and still do when it's issues I'm not well read on. What's the point in reading in-depth analysis of that? What's the point in reading about something which seems to just be a repeat and just as random as things last week?

That doesn't prevent me from being annoyed when people with no idea what they're talking about still voice an opinion, and even vote. But that's just the reality we live in. This is the age of information. And there's more of it than is humanly possible to digest.