what exactly do you see as new?

when you say "prevalent" are you talking purely cultural saturation (from an instantly available perspective)?

you are the one making the assertion, why would the onus be on me to explain away the validity of it? (especially when a web-search of "history of sensationalist sports reporting" would give a pretty healthy bunch of reputable references)

one thing I would say is that there is less of need to be protective of the famous. once upon a time (not too long ago) those in power didn't want you messing with the image of their moneymakers so they had machines to protect them.

that doesn't exist as much today because people knowing about "dirt" doesn't have such a negative affect - in fact, i'd say folks today crave it. scan the posts on this very board, the majority of the stuff here isn't analyzing contests as much as analysis of the people and their actions/motivations (read: they stuff we get from those who scratch beyond the surface of Xs and Os)

we embrace instant stuff like social media because it us "us" a peek into what life is like for them (humanizing them a bit).

its cool to feed the beast right up until its hunger causes it to bite you. foster, as an example, is feeding the beast when he runs out and talks to the cameras. he didn't HAVE to say anything.

"no comment" lets you keep a certain amount of dignity - or at least lets the shark know you aren't going to just FEED them freely