If they would read the history, learn the arguments they dismiss reflexively as idiotic, gather even a modicum of context before pontificating, who knows what might happen?
This is the main point of the article, and a fair one.
This is the main point of the article, and a fair one.
It's not even necessarily a fair one to hang around the neck of "the media".
"The media" used to have considerably better expertise who have been shed through successive waves of buyouts and layoffs. Seriously, newsroom headcounts were cut by >1/3 in the past 10 years.
That's a structural problem with the economics of media in the age of the internet (one which the media dealt with particularly poorly).