You know what I'd like?

'k, nobody asked, but I'm gonna speak on it anyhoo...

I think you got four basic types of journalism -

1. Fact based. Tell me the who, what, when, where, how and be judged solely on the timeliness and accuracy of your reporting. When I wanna know the 90 day GDP growth horizon for Pakistan, I want the f-kin number, not some McKenzie-tard wannabe postulating about the whys and wheres of what he thinks... Same goes for every other kind of news.
2. Op-ed. I read it 'cause you are interesting and I want your flavor. Be provocative, and make a case for your position. Most of all, don't f-king bore me.
3. Counterweight. If it's a government program that's gonna cost me money, reputation, liberties or something else I value, I sure as sh!t want a f-kin bulldog asking hard questions repeatedly and nailing the @ssholes to the stake when they dodge 'em. Same goes for any decision that reaches a certain scale in the public space. Make 'em answer the tough questions or keep asking tougher ones. I don't want to know what your opinion is, and I definitely don't want it to flavor how tough you are. Get in there and make them justify their sh!t and enforce intellectual integrity.
4. Provocateur. Whoever's in front of you, make them work. Ignore their political leaning, background, whether they got nice tits, whatever makes you happy. Just use the oppty to give them a platform to run their beliefs through a worthy crucible. And be just as hard and combative with every motherf-ka that comes in front of you. Again, don't care what you believe, and definitely don't want it to affect your questioning.

I've come to believe that you can't combine these 4 types. Unfortunately, I think the only type we get regularly is a piss poor stream of #2 from people who think they're much more interesting and informed than they actually are. I'd really love some great sources for 1,3 and 4 – without having to immerse myself in a million sources and cut through the crap myself.