Journalists still pursue stories aggressively. The difference is that in the 1960s and 1970s, the stories they pursued in politics surrounded things that mattered like wars and Watergate. Today, the only stories that journalists will pursue aggressively are rumours that Obama is going shirtless on a beach. Having spoken to editors of journalism sites before, I'd have to only partially blame that profession for the change. Readership numbers validate and promote this behaviour.<p>If you want to fix what's wrong with journalism, perhaps we need to start in the classroom by encouraging a culture that values literacy. Yes, science and math are also important, and they've been getting attention. But being able to read and write lengthy essays then debate them is also important. IMHO people flock to the stupid journalism stories because they don't have the comprehension skills to understand what the meaningful stories' implications for them are.
On the contrary, I think both Cronkite and Russert did exactly what they were meant to do: increase ratings and make themselves famous. It's just that Cronkite was of an era when the networks had not yet realized that faux journalism got higher ratings than the real thing.
Maybe not Hacker News per se, but a very good analysis.<p>I suppose the Hacker News angle is looking at the poor journalism (or lack thereof) being done by the large media corporations, and consider hacks that can be used to beat them. What are some ways that a news startup could tell the truth and get attention, with a sustainable business plan?
I've really grown to dislike the American media. And no, not in the "the media is so left/right wing" way. It's just that they sensationalize the stupidest of topics while ignoring the real issues.
Argh! This article reminds me of my love-hate relationship with America.<p><pre><code> 95%: I hate you and everything you stand for
5%: You are the most intelligent and likeable people I have ever met
</code></pre>
I never know what to say.