Journalism's all-or-none thinking process and how it impedes progress.

An interesting article from one UK journalism web site about the "key role slow journalism plays in the 24/7 news cycle." There was always a need for slow journalism -- that's why there are magazines and books, as well as documentaries. All that can be migrated online.

Let me take myself as an example: I went into journalism for the express purpose of studying journalism. That is as slow journalism as it gets. I was a journalist. I wrote about journalism. When I had enough information, I wrote books about the findings.

I wrote breaking news about journalism, and then wrote about the aftermath.

That is the trajectory. I never stopped writing about it when I was a journalist, even as I wrote my books.

It is not all-or-none. It is not as if an issue happens in a prepackaged processed way. The article makes it sound as if you either write about the planting of a seed -- or the flower in full bloom. It's not that way. You compare an event or issue at its various stages, and then compare and contrast it with comparable events as well as to its various milestones.

Fast or slow -- it's all relative. You cannot tell these things from the outside. There aren't lines in the sand, either.

You can reflect as the article implies -- but you can also react -- and then compare. Just because you are writing breaking news, it doesn't mean you have to be careless or fast or loose with the facts. You learn how to reflect and not be taken in by feints or panic.

Finding facts allows us to see each piece of the puzzle separately, but then put those pieces together to see the big picture. It is a steady process.

The problem is journalism is trying to think up easy ways to make quick fixes, and suffer from a severe case of a default delusion -- if you find that one point is wrong, then the opposite must be right by default. It is the reason political arguing never gets anywhere: people see the faults of the opposing side, and then naturally assume they have to be right by default, and it's not.

It is an ongoing process. You are chronicling the growth of a new wrinkle in reality. You can do both, and digital allows for giving both the fast and the long versions.

So, I don't see the point of the article except to try to create boxes that are arbitrary and do not actually exist...