Well, it doesn't help when techbros from 4chan and other 'techie'-linked spaces routinely troll these same journalists by suggesting that they should "learn to code", or something. I'm not saying that their envy is justified, but it seems that there's more than one side at fault here!
I’m not endorsing the campaign which is hurtful at a time when someone has just lost their job, but to interpret it as techbros holding coding up as the way of the future is a mistake. Most of these people are also skeptical of coding as a lasting career.
But this is the human condition. Every organization is prone to these kinds of things. And to some extent, every organization has to be self-interested and prone to value their own interests over those of anyone else.
Which isn't a statement of defeatism--it's worthwhile to curb this tendency, and to identify particularly bad instances of it. It's just that the media themselves are also subject to the human condition, and that despite pretending to be disinterested public servants, they have incentives of their own. And those incentives are only stronger and stronger due to the sheer desperation that the news industry finds itself in.
There's an old saying that you should never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel. The tech industry didn't just pick a fight with one of these men, it threatened the livelihood of all of them at once. So maybe, just maybe, we should price that in a little bit whenever we see yet another hit piece directed at the tech industry.
The most popular model that we all know is called the Gartner Hype Cycle. https://www.gartner.com/en/research/methodologies/gartner-hy...
Arxiv has a few articles on hype cycles for example:
"A simple interpretation of the growth of scientific/technological research impact leading to hype-type evolution curves", Campani, 2014. https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8685
"Hype Cycle Dynamics: Microscopic Modeling and Detection", Hashemi, 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.08939
You can also type "gartner hype cycle" in Scholar or sci-hub and there are many hits.
But I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of such a lobby that you speak of, which is funded by.. umm.. crime industry?
If a family member signs over their genes, and they share a lot of genetic material with me, my privacy is compromised.
I like to think I should have some form of agency over the intrinsic things that make me who I am, but this industry couldn't care less about that. That squicks me out.
Would you send me a scan of your fingerprints? Or do your crime industry connections suggest that you shouldn't do that?
I think in this case the deep pockets would mainly be on the side of selling more genetic testing, as opposed to selling less. After all the pocket holders themselves aren't being tested.
As well as the privacy of your ( possibly still unborn ) children.
That says to me that if you don't take an aggressive regulatory supervision of the healthcare market, (literal) snake oil salesmen will come in and promise the world. It's one thing to let juicero fail because there's no critical health concern that happens when the product ultimately fails. When it's a device or service that impacts patient care, we have a moral obligation to ensure we are doing best to ensure we are positively impacting care.