The rise of PR is definitely a problem, as is the consolidation of media conglomerates. Plus good journalism is just really difficult. Another comment below re

The rise of PR is definitely a problem, as is the consolidation of media conglomerates. Plus good journalism is just really difficult. Another comment below referenced the Gell-Mann effect, which is really easy to lose sight of in day to day reading. There is also a lot of pressure to publish quickly - at the cost of quality - and that's on top of the incentives to nab clicks. I like the notion of journalism as debate, where the sides are clear and each must marshal evidence to support their position. Though like another comment said, we can still get BS evolution vs skeptic debates because too often the burden of evidence is ignored. Then what are the sides? Left vs Right? Corporate vs Independent like Politifact vs Fair.org? And then: evidence can be manufactured. Need support for a policy? Fund a think tank to do a study it. Not that studies are always self-interested. Take Y-Combinator's exploration of Universal Basic Income. They don't stand to directly benefit from exploring it; they see a massive challenge, and have the assets to explore UBI as a potential solution. I do, however, believe journalism will improve in the long run, in large part because I believe good ideas and quality usually survive. And we have more good ideas than ever.