The New Yorker spews sophistry about journalism...as usual, they are oblivious to reality.

Ramble, babble, spew:

Does Journalism Have a Future?

In an era of social media and fake news, journalists who have survived the print plunge have new foes to face.

No, journalism doesn’t have a future when you are puking sophistry and think you have an article.

This is pretentious bullshit. I could write a book about why journalism collapsed.

DM8FnHmXUAA8lfY.jpg

Wait a minute! I did write a book about it!

Go me!

giphy.gif

Notice in Jill Lepore’s long and tedious wallow-fest that she doesn’t look at what is archaic and wrong with journalism?

It is everybody else’s fault!

Let’s blame Craig’s List! And Chartbeat! And our Aunt Gertrude for not subscribing to more than one newspaper!

If only the world would stop progressing!

Journalists are the enfant stupide of the modern world. Bête would also be an appropriate word to describe them.

Journalists are like the student who does very well for a few years, but then gets in his head that is too smart to study and that he already knows everything.

And then doesn’t pay attention in class, doesn’t read notes, study, or do any real homework.

And then is shocked that he is starting to fail.

It can’t be! Didn’t he get great grades before?

As an educator, I have had real students pull this stunt. You can try to tell them that they cannot wing it, or merely use the stuff they learned before. You are learning new things and need different knowledge, facts, and skill sets.

And when you ask these students what is the problem, they have a list all good and ready, but nowhere on this list is their obliviousness and laziness.

Then they gripe to other students how “unfair” it is, only to find out they are bellyaching to those who study and work hard, and are getting sterling grades.

Journalism doesn’t have a future.

It has a past.

But an alternative does have a future because we need information, and the old guard think they are too good to change…