Edward de Bono's "Six Thinking Hats" is trying to shed new light on the traditonal thinking mode. In the past, people are trying to prove their own point of view when discussing with other people, and emphasis lay on "what is" rather than "what can be". The old approach is a kind of argumentative one which proved to be not constructive at all. As everyone is arguing they are right, they are not actually facing the problem.
It reminds me of how magazine approach a story. Magazine is different from the conventional daily. Instead of setting a POV after having all the fact analysed, Magazine is making the hypothesis first. Thus, when a reporter is told to write a report, actually, he is doing a job of collecting evidence in order to support the hypothesis. So when he finds one person's POV is favourable to him, there may be 9 people interviewed with counter-POV.
As a result, an article based on hypothesis rather than hard fact or ideology, together with biased and subjective POV is getting published. Do they really face the problem? face the fact?
Too arrogant the system is and reporters as well. I mean do they really qualified to make such a hypothesis?
I suppose not, the truth is that more senior position the reporter is promoted to, s/he will be more defensive to any doubt on their judgement and opinion, as they can't afford their profession to be challenged. But what if they are really wrong? Clearly, s/he is trapped by her own position and any new idea won't be welcomed to flush in. Stupid, isn't it?
Please always remind yourself to be humble.