One thing I have noticed from reading the paper from 100 years ago is a general lack of "talking heads," professional activists, navel-gazers, and "experts" offering their opinion as part of the story. While such comments did exist (see below), they were not as ubiquitous as they are today. Perhaps this is a function of national income and division of labor - our society is much more affluent today and therefore can "afford," and perhaps desires, professional opinions?

As an example of the lack of studied opinion, the Jan 2, 1906 NYT has an article concerning U.S. imports of luxuries:

[N]ever in the history of the Port of New York were the importations of luxuries so heavy as in 1905. The imports of foreign merchandise at New York during 1905 were valued at $823,272,192, while the duties collected amounted to $183,752,315...Besides imported precious stones and automobiles, for which over $40,000,000 was paid here last year, the records disclose heavy purchases of Swiss embroideries, Japaneses and Continental silks, jewelry, and paintings...Cigar entries at the Custom House for 1905 were valued at $3,000,000, while drugs, chemicals and kindred lines possessed a value of nearly $70,000,000. Something like $73,000,000 worth of champagnes, wines, liquors, and other beverages found their way here.

There is not a single opinion offered in the entire, relatively short, article. Today, such an article might point to how importing BMWs and Hondas threatened our national economic health and, perhaps, our national security. There would be professors, Congressman, labor union officials, and perhaps a psychologist or two to offer their considered opinions on how folks buying jewelry from Japan is bad for the United States.

In another article from the same issue the American Protective Tariff League announced their opposition to President Roosevelt's stance on free trade with the Philippines:

The Philippine Tariff bill is now before the House of Representatives, and the Tariff League has already taken steps to fight the measure. An officer of the league gave it as his opinion that even if the measure passed the House the Senate could be relied upon to strangle it.

I think the 'just-the-facts-ma'am' approach of the NYT from 1905/1906 is refreshing - but this might just be a novelty effect as this is generally not the style of reporting we see today.