4 ms·
That's what the public demands, so that's what news companies cater for in order to make a profit and stay in business. Few journalists like covering that sort
by _djo_ 5y ago
That's what the public demands, so that's what news companies cater for in order to make a profit and stay in business.
Few journalists like covering that sort of stuff, a whole bunch dreamed of being investigative journalists breaking corruption and other public interest stories. But there simply aren't enough people reading those stories to maintain nearly enough staff for them.
Scott Alexander can also do what he does because he's not required to be totally accurate. It's opinion, backed by experience and training, but still opinion. He's also not writing to a deadline, except one he sets himself.
Real journalism is a lot harder than informed commentary.
- naasking 5y agoJournalists aren't required to be totally accurate either. Most journalism is opinion, especially these days. Sometimes also informed opinion backed by experience, often not even that. I'm just not seeing this distinction you claim exists.
- _djo_ 5y agoJournalists at established media houses are accountable, including to internal and external ombuds or public editors. They also rely on reputation. Of course a lot of what's supposed to be 'journalism' isn't, like talking heads on cable news.
- naasking 5y ago> Journalists at established media houses are accountable, including to internal and external ombuds or public editors. They also rely on reputation. Which is ultimately irrelevant, because most mainstream outlets are partisan and look after their own, both on the right and left. You only need to look at the ridiculous coverage of Obama, Trump, Russia, Rittenhouse and dozens more examples over the past few years. The people who peddled misinformation haven't suffered any consequences.