I see an extraordinary amount of coverage, including in New York Magazine, that talks about people as if they were all affluent, from the suburbs, and white. The vast majority of coverage of society, lifestyle, and cities in elite outlets suffers from this myopia. There is also an incredible lack of historical knowledge or effort to learn about relevant history and context in many pieces. In the political realm, there is also far too much coverage of the horse race and conflict at the expense of policy coverage. This is actually less true than it was 15 years ago, but it's still a problem. There is a tendency to give short shrift to massive gathering problems, such as climate change, and too much coverage to immediate events like missing planes or mass shootings. This perverts the public's understanding of their actual relative risks. There is also virtually no coverage of established problems; e.g., 30,000 Americans die in car crashes and it's hardly discussed, but train accidents get huge coverage. There is also a fetish for data, lists, and rankings, without any cogitation about what the data really means. If your ranking of coolest cities puts Arlington, Va., as No. 1, then your metrics are wrong. But instead of using common sense, journalists just churn out this crap. There is also a fetish for counter-intuition. Journalists write stories claiming Trump is a populist instead of a right-winger, or Rand Paul is coming around on climate change when he isn't at all. They fail to examine whether a Republican's vague promise to promote clean air or blue-collar jobs is actually supported or undermined by their actual policy proposals. They also let conservatives determine what is serious discourse. If other Republicans criticize Trump's racism, that's a big story and Trump's in big trouble. If they agree with his ludicrously stupid climate science denial, there is no story there because there's no surprise. Likewise they prefer stories that are easy to understand; e.g., Trump makes offhand racist comment about one judge gets far more coverage than his wildly irresponsible and nonsensical gigantic regressive tax-cut proposal because the latter would require effort to explain and no other Republicans object to it.