The solution starts with this: If they're not skeptical, *by definition* they're not journalists. We need to stop giving credit where is *not* due. As it is,

The solution starts with this: If they're not skeptical, *by definition* they're not journalists. We need to stop giving credit where is *not* due. As it is, we're doing a version of "everyone gets a trophy". That's fine for kids. But if they want to be called a journalist they need to earn it (i.e., meet the criteria). Furthermore, solo bloggers aside, this also falls on the editors and publishers. If some hack - notice I didn't say journalist - writes something that fails to meet the criteria then that should not be published. Full stop. But that's not what's happening. Instead we get less and less quality as the hacks drink their own Kool Aid. The current situation is Orwellian. The hacks call themselves journalists. The journalists call the hacks journalists. The rest of us call the hacks journalists. There is zero incentive for the hacks (and associated editors and publishers) to fix their QA problem. Zer. Oh. If your pet barks, do you call it a cat? Well, the same attention to detail should apply to journalists and journalism. That is the start to fixing the problem. Stop letting bullshit get passed off as anything but what it is.