A book I read (can't remember the title) said something that has stuck with me. Paraphrased: "Everyone can be as charismatic as Bill Clinton. You do it on a job interview or on a first date. The secret is... he does it all the time"
"Clinton had this huge charisma. He was wearing a pair of black trousers and a blue checked shirt with his sleeves rolled up. His presence made everyone around him so comfortable. He had this extraordinary ability to make us feel very special. He took time out to speak to each one of us — asking about our family, where we were raised and educated, what were the things in our life that we hold important." 
But I guess in today's world it is unlikely to take a high office that is based on popularity by not having a winning personality - even so the facets might become distorted through media.
It is not lessons on "How to be False and Unctuous" or "How to Abuse the Kindness of Others," which were the original images that the title evoked from me.
The book seems like it'd be "your guide to becoming a smarmy dick in 30 days!" but it really stresses sincerity and other various laudable goals. A lot of the book is obvious in hindsight but it's pretty well written and has become a classic for good reason.
I think this because journalism is now ranked by 'page views', when in 1922, journalism was ranked by professional editors. For journalism, page views = ad views = revenue, so optimizing for anything else is folly. A short article with eye catching headlines and sensationalism is always going to outdo a great article like the OP. Any way to reverse this trend? Even pay-for journalism today is still plagued by 'page views', as no follow up article is going to be written if the views are low. Back in 1922, nobody really knew the page views and they could only be badly estimated with a reader's survey.
EDIT: I've actually changed my mind - journalism of this standard is definitely alive and well, you just have to look to lesser known bloggers now instead of big media. This is probably the true death-knell of big media if I ever saw it - loss of quality content. I present the following blog post from this year as evidence:
The way writing styles have changed in general in 100 years is also interesting!
"No follow up article is going to be written in the views are low," you write. Says who? You've proven your ability to cite sources, why not cite this one? Professional editorship is dead? What an assumption.
You mention big media in your edit. Good of you to get more specific with your straw-man, I appreciate that. However, if you're sick of the perceived decline of what you think to be "journalism," call me sick of people who lump the worst of this world of reportage and writing in with everyone else.
OTOH, the article is not so much journalism as it is a parable.
So he complains about thoughtless, rushed modern culture, but his writing is a case in point. I don't respect that.
The irony is they cheat themselves out of their own success because they're too busy trying to pander.
O.E. todæge, to dæge "on (the) day," from to "at, on" + dæge, dative of dæg "day". Generally written as two words until 16c., after which it usually was written to-day until early 20c.
late 13c., to morewe, from O.E. to morgenne "on (the) morrow," from to "at, on" + morgenne, dative of morgen "morning". Written as two words until 16c., then as to-morrow until early 20c.
The latter reminds me of Spanish where they say "mañana por la mañana" (lit. tomorrow during the morning) and Portuguese where they say "amanhã da manhã" (lit. tomorrow of the morning).
This can easily be taken the wrong way and come across completely unauthentic. For example ..