Absolutely, but my point is the original claim of "journalism is not our fact gathering process" is just wrong.

Sure, there's a frame problem in journalism just as much as there is in AI, and sure, journalists play a (possibly outsized) role in finding contemporary suboptimal solutions for it. But even with that being the case, somebody has to go out and get information for us to talk about, argue about, rage about, call for more information about etc. etc.

That's what (good) journalists (reporters) do.

"Facts all come with points of view" (Talking Heads, early 1980s)

> my point is the original claim of "journalism is not our fact gathering process" is just wrong.

Allow me to reword; facts are necessary but not at all sufficient to constitute journalism, nor journalism can claim monopoly on fact gathering. E.g. we have other, more formal, fact gathering processes such as science or court of law, which cannot be substituted with journalism, damages of which we see to the extent it tries to.

The firehose of twitter, youtube etc feeds already give us facts to talk about, argue about, rage about, call for more information about. And we are not in better shape for it. We cannot sufficiently convert those facts into sense. Nor those facts are always the ones we should be interested in.

That's why it's critical not to reduce journalism to fact gathering.

I would broadly agree with that. I am not sure it is the job of journalism to "convert facts into sense", though it seems reasonable to posit that this is part of the role of journalism in contemporary society. It is certainly something that many journalists (particularly of the journal-ist variety aka op-ed writers) try to do. But it seems to me that if you're serious about trying to make sense of the facts/the world, you need to turn to much deeper analysis than journalism typically represents.