But, it's annoying to get downvoted, and not always deserved. It's just not usually helpful, in my experience, to respond to it directly. You said something, others didn't like it. Either: 1) you said something true, but painful, in which case you don't need to repeat it, and responding just distracts from your original point, or 2) you said something that wasn't on target, in which case again complaining about the downvotes isn't constructive.
A better question is: how many journalists know how to code? Because that's the skill necessary to make sense of the world today and the massive volume of data it throws your way.
I don't expect completely neutral reporting, but I do expect some basic data literacy rather than anecdotes spun into narrative and repeated breathlessly from outlet to outlet. Plus, if we are awash in manipulation, I'd prefer to find that out from an independent source rather than a three letter acronym with a long rep sheet of human rights abuses.
The GDPR cookie debacle revealed this better than anything: what really drives the news industry now is tech, they're beholden to it. Plus, it's all third party. They no longer own their beat, the beat owns them. All the griping about FB and Twitter is exceedingly amusing to me for this reason. It's the news industry that capitulated, but is now chiding the rest of us for not having stood up, using the giants as a scape goat.
We need journalism more than ever, but journalism needs to get its shit together first.
But sure, what journalism needs is "neutral reporting of facts."
F*ckin' engineers should spend less time debating React vs. Vue.js and try the humanities some time.