This is a rather confusing list of grievances. I have no idea why it's being upvoted, except maybe that any broadside against journalism currently finds its aud

This is a rather confusing list of grievances. I have no idea why it's being upvoted, except maybe that any broadside against journalism currently finds its audience? As far as I can tell, the author mostly wants journalists to focus more on what people want to read. That's rather surprising, considering the criticism usually revolves around journalists writing too much for the market, i. e. the perennial complaints about page view maximisation, buzzfeed's big clickstream leaderboard, too much political horse-race coverage, emotional storytelling, etc etc. In fact, the article here makes this point almost explicit: "newsrooms aren’t empathizing, prototyping, or testing their work with their audience before they publish." Count me among those quite happy with newsrooms not deciding coverage on the basis on "empathizing and prototyping". Because that would seem the quickest path into the filter bubble. The article also ignores that most journalism already reaches its audience by what I would consider "pull", in as far as the concept has any meaning: I pay for magazines and a newspaper, and follow some publications and journalists on twitter or RSS. The author complains about journalists "PUSHES LIKE HELL" (all-caps theirs). I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, really. Posting the article to Twitter and Facebook? The author lists "[..] email blasts, social media campaigns – and, possibly worst of all, paid social media campaigns". The first two seem completely benign, except that they are phrased to suggest some sort of malfeasance. A newsletter you presumedly signed up for is not an "email blast", it's just an email. Nor are social media posts the same as "social media campaigns". As to paid social media posts, I rarely if ever see see any paid advertising for individual stories. Does anybody? Another complaint is journalists ignoring facts contradicting their pet theories, and not asking sources that would contradict them. That's a complaint seemingly completely unrelated to the article's main thesis. But in any case, it's mostly fantasy. Read any article in, say, Politico, The Atlantic, or the NYT and you will find either a quote from the subject of an article, or a statement such as "XYZ declined to comment / did not reply to a request for comment".