Anybody hear ever read The Lyndon Johnson Years by Robert Caro? I have no love for Nixon, but I think that he was right in his whining about how the press let Johnson off the hook for doing the same (or worse). While it was investigative journalism that brought down Nixon, I can't help but wonder why it didn't bring down LBJ? I think that the same biases still come into play when trying to explain it. The clearest example of a bias that affects how you shape a story is the Robert Caro project, itself, which was nearly a half-century of top-level research into making the multi-part biography. To paraphrase his own words, he started out wanting to write a biography of LBJ because from the outside--Caro was an NYC reporter at the time of the LBJ presidency--he thought that LBJ was a sterling example of how the use of presidential power in noble hands could achieve great things. A couple decades and a couple of books later, umm ... not so much.Cronkite is the example used when talking about how video media changed history. Print media has been attacking Presidents since our country's founding. Teddy Roosevelt says hi. Watergate is a print media example of when day-2-day reporters used investigative journalism to dig beyond the story and get to the truth, which led to getting a president removed from office and two reporters becoming rich celebrities. Print, then pajama media have been chasing that standard since. It used to be the sensationalism was in the headline and editorial page but the stories through the paper was fact based. Now sensationalism is cover to cover.