Apologies for the lack of clarity. I don't feel there is that much of a distinction between editors and journalists. What I'm saying is basically that by allow

Apologies for the lack of clarity. I don't feel there is that much of a distinction between editors and journalists. What I'm saying is basically that by allowing instantaneous publishing, the web is allowing journalists to "go to press" in 3 seconds. There doesn't have to be much thought given to rewrites, or sourcing, or flow, or editorial content. In fact, I'd argue that the more time the modern journalist spends doing these things is a disadvantage. Of course the web eventually sorts it all out: it's wrong a bunch but the correct story eventually makes it. But we're losing something. This is very similar to the comments made by old-timey C++ programmers looking at modern OO IDEs. Yes, you can do things really fast, but you're also losing an important part of the craft by doing it this way. In my opinion these two roles, which of course could be performed by the same person, are separating. Long-format, well-edited work is going down a separate path than what we would consider traditional journalism. Beats me where it ends up. I don't think there will be a journalism platform built. This isn't a money problem. This is a structural problem. Technology has pulled apart the instantaneous recording of events from the polished presentation of "news"