Great X Journalist is an oxymoron. Journalism has no art to it. It's a simple algorithm > find a story you can contort into something interesting > interview

Great X Journalist is an oxymoron. Journalism has no art to it. It's a simple algorithm > find a story you can contort into something interesting > interview an "expert" for two hours so you can quote mine one sentence about how remarkable the story is > Publish bullshit article, wait for ad revenue Maybe this story isn't bullshit, but when your only quote is from a guy who -- by your own admission -- was uninvolved with the research, and all he has to say is "this could maybe be significant," you don't really have a story, do you? It's not Wolchover that I object to, it's the incentives that are set up to make her subtly overstate the importance of anything she has to cover (disclaimer: I don't know any of her other work). 95% of journalism should be book-keeping. Dryly reporting the quantitative results of research. The fact that she has a quote like that suggests to me that she was digging to make it something more. I don't think that's her fault; it's just her job. But I have to call it out when I perceive it.