Author of the post in question here. Thanks for the thoughtful commentary. Always nice to stumble on a conversation about something I've written that I assume n

Author of the post in question here. Thanks for the thoughtful commentary. Always nice to stumble on a conversation about something I've written that I assume nobody has read. :) Few quick responses to some of the themes that you've all surfaced: The essay is coming from the context of my own work, which is focused on public-service journalism and local journalism. These types of journalism can result in different types of reporting products, e.g., https://projects.propublica.org/chicago-tickets/ https://projects.propublica.org/chicago-tickets/ Many of us in the industry consider these types of products "journalism," but they are not necessarily what comes to mind for most. National security reporting (The Intercept) and national reporting of any kind, are for sure different beasts, and beat to a different drum. National reporting, as pointed out, tends to report what has happened. National security reporting is typically adversarial reporting, and -- as pointed out -- the concept of pull journalism is probably not a fit there. However, in the context of local and public-service journalism -- where, when it works well, it aims to explain "the climate not the weather" (i.e., _why_ something is happening, not simply that it happened) -- I believe there is an opportunity to do a better job "centering the user" in the conversation about what to report, and -- frankly -- what the reporting product looks like (Is it written? Is it video? Is it a database? Is it a podcast?). All that to say, the essay simply proposes that there are patterns in journalism that have become cemented over the decades, and that re-thinking these patterns in the context of the changes that have occurred in the way people consume and interact with information are worth exploring for new journalism undertakings. Three cents! :) P.S. Thanks for catching the typos!