[Slyfox]

Good friend of mine was trained as a journalist, got her masters, went to work for a couple of publications in her work life, one a magazine and the other a newspaper. We had lunch the other day and I asked her about this very subject. She said, "They have replaced the objective for the subjective. There is no need to edit anymore." I asked, "Is that why the New York Times let go of something like 150 editors?" She said, "Yes."

Who needs editors when you aren't doing real news anymore?

I used to like to sit down and read a long newspaper article on whatever event had just taken place - catastrophe or whatever, and I knew when I finished that article I had just gotten all the facts written in a compelling way. I understood what happened. The writer had either witnessed it or gathered all the facts and wrote it and got it edited for truth and clarity, and then they published it.

That rarely happens anymore. Everyone thinks their opinion is what matters, not the truth and its verification.

I miss those old days when it was difficult to figure out how the writer voted in the last election.

[Slyfox]

Here is an example of a great article written by a great writer:

https://spectator.us/pakistans-asia-bibis-lawyer/

[Sam Gamgee]

So funny because when you watch fictional journalists on TV series, the writers portray them of champions of the truth who would never post an article without corroboration. If only that were true.