You'll note this selective depth of focus effect creeping into news reports. Back in my day as a camera operator, focus had to be this >|< sharp. Always. And if the subject moved, the opo' had to pull the focus - hence the Focus Puller on movie credits. Now, it's used to 'drift attention' to the action, often by the news reporter who went to a five minute film school on Youtube. Again, a CRAP FX.
I do some video journalism as a hobby these days and I find smaller sensor cameras best as just about everything is always in focus. I find with interviews, it can be quite pleasing to have a smidgen of background blur, which can be achieved by moving the camera further back and zooming in; this can help emphasise the person who is talking, but usually the background is important, as there is often something happening there which is relevant.
Larger sensor cameras are much better in low light; in fact the 0.4" camera which I recently spent over £1000 on is rather crap in low light. So I can see the appeal of larger sensors. I also notice amongst hobbyists, that quite a few people use DSLRs. I consider these not very good for anything which might be considered "news", but for hobbyists/low budget business it may be the best option, especially if you do a lot of still photos, or need the low light sensitivity. But even if a DSLR news report has excessive background blur, at least it is proper lens blurring and not that faked stuff!
The issue with the fake DOF is that the camera often doesn't know the actual distances involved, so in a portrait, the face will be in focus, but the ears will be blurred, and will be blurred by the same amount as the wall behind them.
There was one good example on a manufacturers website where the person was stood on a bridge. The railings (which were probably a few meters away from the camera) were blurred, but the background in between the railings was pin sharp, but the [same] background above the railings was blurred!