Also, I think there's a genuine issue in journalism / online readership that remains to be addressed - the prestige payment scale. Basically my view is that in

Also, I think there's a genuine issue in journalism / online readership that remains to be addressed - the prestige payment scale. Basically my view is that internet hosted articles are a low form of journalism, so it's reasonable to expect UPROXX to get basic facts wrong XX% of the time, or a Huffington Post author to employ fallacies here and there to support a position, or some other kind of issue where quality and integrity are at odds with driving traffic. It makes for good training though. That's when it's possible to advance to the next tier. An Ars Technica or Engadget is above the basic tier, but only in the sense that they have a better reputation, drive more traffic, and therefore pay better. The usefulness of this tier varies - those with chops will continue to develop. Eventually, a featured writer or contributor will become known for their work at the site. Then comes the top tier, the legacy media outlets that are forced to compete with the lower two tiers mentioned. They are at the height of the prestige and pay scale environment, at least in theory. I've seen several authors move from 2nd tier outlets (Ars Technica, DealBreaker) up to the 1st tier (Washington Post, Bloomberg) which look like the reward for many years of developing a journalistic style, reputation, and pool of knowledge to weave into works as a whole. I think it'd be a pretty worthwhile review of careers for authors in certain fields since a 20XX time until the present. Unfortunately I don't have the free time or interest to do it myself. It's just a musing, I suppose.