True, for me I’ve always felt that journalistic analysis isn’t actual analysis because they never begin their piece with any actual facts to extrapolate from but much rather utilize subjective viewpoints and treat them as facts to “analyze” (for instance not stating the facts on climate change that the scientific community agree on, but instead doing a analysis on “public feeling” on “climate change” or the viability of small businesses to “survive” with new climate policies or some other trite wash).

For the journos that get whacked I feel that they start from the facts and their overall reporting then leads to a cocnrete conclusion of “oh hey the CIA is demonic”, or “US imperialism is a net negative to the world at large”.