3 ms·
The sad thing is that this is the general state of the media these days, and has been for a long time. The old standard is a media of middle men, a media of fol
by InclinedPlane 13y ago
The sad thing is that this is the general state of the media these days, and has been for a long time. The old standard is a media of middle men, a media of folks who know the J-school way to translate just-in-time learning into carefully formatted and worded stories that would fit the form and flow of newspapers and be easily digested by their readers. But, to be frank, that's a lazy job, and a poor one too. And, as demonstrated here, is easily manipulated because the so-called journalists are typically salivating for "access" and not well versed in the subject matter they allegedly cover, so they can be baited with carefully crafted PR pieces.
- mpclark 13y agoThe problem is that's it's worth about what we pay for it...
- InclinedPlane 13y agoThat's a problem largely because the transition is a difficult one. The problem is that fundamentally the vast majority of folks who did journalism in the pre-internet era are not suitable for doing journalism in the internet era. That has nothing to do with tech savvy and everything to do with subject expertise, something that journalists have for the most part eschewed. One consequence of that is that a lot of modern journalism is pretty interchangeable. Thus not very valuable in the internet age. Thus not very valued. That doesn't mean all journalism must be that way though, or that people are universally unwilling to pay for good journalism. However, it does mean that in the majority of instances there's no easy transition from where they are now to a state of journalistic practice that is sufficiently valuable and sufficiently valued enough to be self-sustaining in the internet world. We'll likely have a period where a lot of old forms of journalism are dying or dwindling without replacement before new forms come around.