> I think that's more a problem of social media, where it seems true more often than not, and not professional media
For one thing, Professional Media is inextricably linked to Social Media (especially Twitter), and are leading participants in the salacious outrage bait economy there. For another, my criticism is not that journalists are making things up from whole cloth, but rather that they are more than willing to comb through discovery filings to find the most outlandish thing anyone has every said in order to paint a picture that may or may not be an representative of the broader case.
I don't think they do this because they are the "enemy of the people", but because it drives engagement.
I really don't see that happen very often. Can you give examples?
I think it's a vast exaggeration. Every human activity and institution has flaws; we can't eliminate all of them. One solution is to have transparency - journalists are transparent because they have to provide evidence.
> journalists are transparent because they have to provide evidence.
Just count how many "according to anonymous sources" stories you heard recently, and how much of the "evidence" anyone would independently verify. You'd be surprised (or not, if you've been awake for the last decade).
I read those stories quite a bit. In serious journalism, they are corroborated with other evidence and usually turn out to be accurate. I saw a NY Times story based on interviews with ~80 people and confidential documents; these journalists aren't kidding around. The reputations and careers (and liability) of serious journalists rest on uncovering important stories and getting it right, not on the number of clicks.
> The reputations and careers (and liability) of serious journalists rest on uncovering important stories
Maybe it used to be so, but not anymore. Now the careers of journalists (I don't know how to define "serious" without going into true-scotsman weeds) depend much more on ideological conformity and willingness to serve partisan interests and push the narrative that needs to be pushed. The ones that are not willing to do that - regardless of political affiliations - find themselves outside of the "mainstream" media, usually on Substack or likewise stand-alone platforms.
For one thing, Professional Media is inextricably linked to Social Media (especially Twitter), and are leading participants in the salacious outrage bait economy there. For another, my criticism is not that journalists are making things up from whole cloth, but rather that they are more than willing to comb through discovery filings to find the most outlandish thing anyone has every said in order to paint a picture that may or may not be an representative of the broader case.
I don't think they do this because they are the "enemy of the people", but because it drives engagement.