The impartiality and authenticity of journalism are more and more haunted not only by the advent of media moguls and political and economic interests at large, but also by the raising of figures like spin doctors, whose aim is spinning and blame news in order to favor politicians they work for. Thus, journalists are victim of the decisions not only of the government, advertisers and interest groups, but also of spin doctors’ influence and pressures. This arguments are what Nick Davies summarizes in the concept of ‘churnalism’, which is a new journalism which is boxed in soft news that are dictated by the ‘news factory’ that is the result of external pressures. Thus, journalists are no longer free of finding news on their own and report them in a not-biased and impartial way. It seems that both investigative and hard news journalism are ‘dumbing down’ and that news are only a commodity to be sold. A better explanation of this phenomenon is what Steven Barnett (2002) chronicles as the four ages of political journalism. The first phase is that of deferential (‘lapdog’) journalism, where the reporter simply reproduces the words of the politician; the second is that of ‘equal engagement’, when exchanges between journalists and politicians are more robust, and when each challenged the other to defend their corner. This period has been followed by the era of journalistic ‘disdain’, in which the journalist adopts an attitude of deep suspicion of the motives and reliability of the politicians. This leads to the current era, which Bernett defines as ‘contempt’ era. This final phase contributes to the general cynicism around politics. This is the consequence of a general collapse in the market of media and in the reliability in politicians. Consequently, journalists try to portray and endorse this general attitudes towards politics and are switchingg to a ‘watchdog’ position.