> Either way, what way do you propose that normal citizens get the investigative information needed to participate in a democracy if we don't have journalism? W

> Either way, what way do you propose that normal citizens get the investigative information needed to participate in a democracy if we don't have journalism? What's the alternative? That is a vitally important question whenever ideas like "Gell-Mann Amnesia" come up. Cataloguing journalists' mistakes and ethical lapses is easy, and I think that can sometimes evolve into a cheap cynicism that deprecates the vital job that journalists do, and that cynicism is toxic to democracy. Journalists are all kinds of imperfect, but despite that journalism still performs a vital function for democracy. There's no other practical way for the public to stay broadly informed with timely information, than to have generalist communicators try to summarize into digestible bites the fire hose of events and specialist knowledge for broad dissemination.