Wow. I don't even know where to start.
You start by telling me I'm arguing against human progress (WTF?), and then proceed to apologize for a group of people whose behavior was obviously and apologetically out of line for the better part of a year, and even call their work "credible." You then suggest that more people of this caliber are necessary, ignoring the fact that more people will not diffuse the laziness or alleviate the stretched budgets you claim are the source of the problem.
No, the problem is groupthink, editors who refuse to run stories contrary to their political views, and news stations who position their organization for ratings rather than their informational value.
Yes, I'm saying that simple, unfiltered data is preferable to lies and spin. The fact that reporters spin and lie to fit their personal and organizational agendas is well-known. To call them on their dishonesty is never "stale."