Modern journalists are just terminally online twitter heads.

"Why go out or talk to anyone when I can just stay home and be on twitter all day!?!"

It's the absolute worst outcome for journalism, and none of publications seem to care. If I had a publication the first thing I would do is ban twitter use (and probably go bankrupt because of it.)

publications probably encourage it so they can slash the operating budgets. if people are "staying at home on twitter all day", then they don't need office space. if they are willing to stay home to be on twitter all day, they are probably much younger less experienced/credentialed employee so they're cheaper too!

>i never read them anyway, and when I do come across articles on topics I'm knowledgeable about, i'm appalled by how wrong they are.

I never do that, except when I do. What kind of soapbox are you trying to stand on. It looks more like a cardboard box collapsing under the weight of your own hubris.

I get the suspicion of news outlets of any kind. It doesn't matter what stream the journalists are fished out of, but they cannot all be subject matter experts in all subjects. This is also an expectation full of hubris on your part.

exactly. When I read things I KNOW about, it's incredibly obvious that the news entertainment business (which WP and NYT and CNN and Fox all are) exist to serve the prejudices of their audience. A few times I made the mistake to let myself be interviewed by a newspaper who wanted an "expert" on something (flattering, but meh); something copletely benign and harmless, nothing political. They twisted my words to serve up stuff that fit what their "normal reader" already believed about the world.

It's crazy to me that people pay for access to these outlets. I wouldn't pay for any content except from individual journalists and a few very small outlets, and even then, would immediately stop if things ever turn for the worse.