If establishment journalists were to replicate actual stenography, it would be an improvement on most of the work they produce.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
A common criticism of establishment journalists entails comparing them to stenographers, on the ground that most of them do little more than mindlessly write down and uncritically repeat what government officials say.
The fundamentals of what journalism is about don't necessarily change. What will change is the delivery of news.
The problem today isn't low-quality journalism, it's too much noise. If one out of five 'Business Insider' stories is original, the other four would be culled.
The smarter the journalists are, the better off society is. For to a degree, people read the press to inform themselves - and the better the teacher, the better the student body.
Being a journalist, you write what you see. If we can't do that, what use are we? I turned years of training on myself.
The only thing I'd ever done with news was to read copy sitting at the microphone in the studio.
I think there's a future where the Web and print coexist and they each do things uniquely and complement each other, and we have what could be the ultimate and best-yet array of journalistic venues.
God, newspapers have been making up stories forever. This kind of trifling and fooling around is not a function of the New Journalism.
Surely the glory of journalism is its transience.
Journalists don't have audiences - they have publics who can respond instantly and globally, positively or negatively, with a great deal more power than the traditional letters to the editor could wield.