I usually try and stay out of threads about publishing because I work in the industry and most of them are heated or incredibly vitriolic. (I'm employed in the

I usually try and stay out of threads about publishing because I work in the industry and most of them are heated or incredibly vitriolic. (I'm employed in the industry as a software developer, not a journalist) But this time I'm a little amused. There's a lot of in-depth commentary by non-journalists about journalism. When non-software engineers comment about software development, or non-physicists comment about physical science there's usually much more ire for the lack of accuracy. And further, Substack (is that what's used instead of Medium now?) always seems to be posted with some kind of critique of every other journalistic outlet or platform. I guess that's how the new outlets get started now: react or rebel against something else? It worked for Canadaland and they've grown into their own so maybe it'll run a good course. But I think the article isn't good. Why make such a sweeping statement when you're really only assessing an article or two in one or two publications? Why treat all writing in a given publication as a common sum? They are editorialized and curated, but certainly not monolithic. It's so dismissive and hand-wavy that I can hardly believe it's ranked this highly on HN and I must only assume it's because everyone everywhere seems to love to pile on a few things these days, and they always end up popular: how "bad" modern journalism is, how much artists should be paid (usually nothing), and any even remotely politically-charged subject. And each time, the story or the comments seem to be empty of compassion or even base-level empathy and understanding. But I digress...