While I can certainly appreciate the concern that public relations puff pieces are replacing real news reporting, I do have trouble with the implications of Mr. Oppegaard saying, "Segal suddenly bursts into journalist mode and cribs colleague Kevin Dayton’s reporting about the troubled place where they are celebrating. ...That hangar actually is a slow-going cargo facility at the airport many years behind schedule, 50% over budget ...."

Are we then to take from this that "real journalism" means digging for problems and conspiracy, even if the reporter has to go off topic to insert some negativity into an article?  What's wrong with a story about good news, or even a story that simply covers, for the record, a historical event like a company event?  To me, the integrity of the journalistic piece is to stay on topic, not entice readers with 1 topic then change the subject.  Save the investigation for another article in which government mismanagement is the stated focus.