One of the reasons that "high-quality journalism" is in trouble is that it's no longer high-quality compared to the competing offerings now available to readers. In the past, readers had to rely upon journalists "doing research, finding new angles, interviewing people" to get expert knowledge. Now the experts are online and talking to readers directly, cutting out the middlemen.
Take the recent US election, for example. Why would a reader expect to be better informed by reading traditional journalists, even those doing high-quality work, than by reading Nate Silver or Andrew Gelman?
"High-quality journalism," to be blunt, is in trouble because it's not really that good. It's just that nobody had a better alternative until the Internet gave them one.
Take the recent US election, for example. Why would a reader expect to be better informed by reading traditional journalists, even those doing high-quality work, than by reading Nate Silver or Andrew Gelman?
"High-quality journalism," to be blunt, is in trouble because it's not really that good. It's just that nobody had a better alternative until the Internet gave them one.