See, that's my point - you're never going to see much coverage on the ease of redeeming miles. That's just the nature of the media.

Suppose they built a brand new airport outside Denver, and the state-of-the-art baggage moving system worked to perfection. Flyers raved about the ease of it all. No bags lost out of the thousands moving around the Denver airport. It's wonderful. This story might make the local news in Denver but only because if you're a news outlet in Denver, you've got to do a story on the new aiport and, well, the high-tech baggage moving system is as good an angle as any for your new airport story. But this story would never go beyond the local Denver media.

Now suppose they built a brand new airport outside Denver, and the state-of-the-art baggage handling system is royally screwed up beyond belief. No one can find their bags, it leads to delays, air travelors are furious and they have no idea when they might be able to get the whole mess fixed. Well, that story will be on CNN, World News Tonight, and all the rest. It will be widely reported because the system did not work like it was supposed to.

Same thing with redeeming miles - would only get widespread coverage when it doesn't work.

Objectivity for most journalists does not mean "I will do a story on redeeming frequent flyer miles and report whatever I find, whether it's good, bad or ugly."

The objectivity comes in long after the reporter decides to do a story on how some people get screwed trying to redeem miles. The objectivity is in finding one or two others who had good experiences to add some balance near the end of the report on people being screwed.

Not saying I agree with this practice or defend it, just that this is the reality.