All I really want from journalists is the information that most of us are too lazy or busy to collect. I want them to make phone calls, speak to insiders, cross reference public statements with available records, generally make a nuisance of themselves until they have some new insights to bring to light.
Most times though it seems they're barely doing any more research than what went into a well received HN comment. Except some articles are padded out with details of what the reporter is having for lunch during the interview... I've got no idea why that type of writing is in demand. I'd rather read a flat transcript in most cases.
I'd go a bit further than that - I think the most important work for professional journalists involves doing things most of us are too scared to do.
Would you get out your camera and start taking photos after My Lai? Be willing to wear being on Nixon's enemies list as a badge of honor? Uncover police corruption? Be shot while working foreign correspondence? Go undercover in the Ku Klux Klan? Publish information about a corporation after they've given you a cease and desist?
Maybe you would. And I'd like to think I would too sitting here in the comfort of my office feeling principled, but I'm not sure that means much.
And it doesn't even have to be about really significant stuff. For example our local paper had a story recently about a new website for one of the city services. No mention of:
a) What it cost.
b) Why it was 12 months late (based on deadline in original RFP).
c) Why key requirements specified in the original RFP were not implemented.
I mean if I wanted to just read the city's one-sided press release, I would do that.
And the paper wonders why nobody subscribes to the print version anymore.
More newsworthy would be if it actually came in as promsed, on time and under budget. Only the Onion seems interested in breaking real news like that, however.
At work, we recently put out a press release on some technology we had developed. I got to witness first-hand how so much of the online publishing world is just a slightly rearranged copy of the press release. Depressing.
"Journalist" has somehow mutated into "Blogging" and "Live streams", with a page hit, view count, ad revenue pumping machine that tries to incinerate whatever relics remain.
I agree with your notion of "journalist". A rebranding of the burnt name may be in order. I like the idea of calling those who practice the craft Detectives.
I think eventually the pendulum will swing and information density will start to come to the fore a bit more. The aggregation & internal-link architecture approaches are just gaming the advertising industry and will eventually die out (a bit).
Most times though it seems they're barely doing any more research than what went into a well received HN comment. Except some articles are padded out with details of what the reporter is having for lunch during the interview... I've got no idea why that type of writing is in demand. I'd rather read a flat transcript in most cases.