[tryitnow]

I think that explains only part of the problem.

The other problem is that for-profit media would never have an incentive to hire journalist with quantitative skills. There's very little demand for it outside of trade and professional presses and I would bet media companies would have to pay quant journalist at least twice as much as regular ones.

So why should media companies hire and publish quant journalists? There's no good reason.

And that's also why journalism programs don't teach serious quantitative methods - there's not going to be demand for journalists with those skill sets.

The obvious exception to this is trade and professional publications, but those are often subscribed to by businesses with a vested economic interest in the information.

[magashna]

>So why should media companies hire and publish quant journalists? There's no good reason.

So that you can take them seriously. Then again, modern journalism is such a joke I don't know if this is a worthy endeavor

[kube-system]

Do they need you to take them seriously in order to support their revenue stream?

[marcosdumay]

Advertisers used to have to take them seriously. But thanks to the new revolution of commoditized ads, they don't anymore.

[bakuninsbart]

How about The Economist? I feel like they are doing a good job at a middle path.

[grenoire]

There is genuine critique about the inexperienced writers of The Economist (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot...) —however, still much better than any other print media, it seems.

[sparky_z]

That's from almost 30 years ago. And it's not like there's any hard data, mostly just gossip from a single source.

Now that many of the writers aren't anonymous anymore, is there anybody still saying that it's all young 20-somethings?

[mattkrause]

I’ve seen more than a few data science-like jobs at the New York Times, and I don’t think all of them were on the business side.