Re:Manifestos and Monopolies
by linkregister on Wednesday February 22, 2017 @03:16AM
(#13704031)
Experts in a professional fields have been writing books for hundreds of years. How is anything fundamentally different now? The shortened cycle?
Experts in various fields have written guest columns for newspapers since before the U.S. declared independence.
Tabloid and marginally amateur newspapers previously outnumbered the established publications. When new towns and cities were formed in the American Frontier, often a printing press was brought with the first businesses.
Your argument appears to follow from the premise that "MSM is bad" and then seeks justification in a just-so story of the old days that isn't accurate.
I'm not defending modern journalism's accuracy. I'm disputing your assertion that the consolidated journalism of the late 20th and early 21st centuries are the default. On the contrary, they are abnormal with respect to the rest of American history.
I think that what the Internet revealed is that being able to write well takes a back seat to knowing information worth writing about. Content over form, in other words. In the old days, you needed dedicated reporters who would go ask the actual experts their opinions on events because most people could not hold down two jobs, and an industrial company is not going to also operate a printing press. Now, with the ease & reach of publishing becoming so much greater, it becomes much easier to publish on your nights and weekends, as a way of getting your name out in the field. I actually view mainstream media as "low quality" now, because when you compare any piece with the blog of the experts actually quoted in it, you see just how many omissions and distortions appear in it.