[woevdbz]

Journalism is this weird profession where its individual members have very little personal power and clout, because doing good research and writing is not a huge barrier to entry. Most are just freelance cogs in a big capitalistic machine that isn't doing very well by capitalist standards. But collectively they wield immense power to set the narrative that essentially drives democracy. I suspect this encourages pack behaviors.

[paulpauper]

because doing good research and writing is not a huge barrier to entry.

it's a big barrier when one considers the vast majority of Americans, even those with degrees, cannot do either well.

[chucksmash]

If only 1 in 100 can do either well (enough) but with digital media reach you only need 1 in 10000 to fill such spots, that's still an oversupply of journalism job seekers who need some other way to differentiate themselves.

Separate rant, but journalistic writing feels so paint-by-numbers now and I think that reduces the barrier as far as writing talent required. I know journalists have always been taught to write articles with a certain shape, but it feels like we've moved beyond "inverted pyramid" to something more constrained. Every article must mention the effect of whatever is being reported upon the downtrodden, every article must end with a quote from an individual affected by the subject of the article that is twinged with irony or somehow fraught with meaning to make it personal.

It's as if all HN posts had to end with a coda that captured the essence of what the poster wanted to express in a dramatic way.

Pausing, chucksmash seemed reflective. "There's a dreary, pervasive sameness to the way we express ourselves now, and I suspect it's driven by engagement metrics" he said, slowly sipping his coffee before looking back to his phone with a sigh.

[woevdbz]

> Every article must mention the effect of whatever is being reported upon the downtrodden

Not if you read foxnews.com or worse... There's still a format there, the themes are different. It's about celebrating good guys with guns, eyerolling at progressive people ("snowflakes") or policies, whining about what straight white folks have to deal with these days, etc.

I don't know if it's any worse now than it's been historically TBH.

[chroem-]

> they wield immense power to set the narrative that essentially drives democracy

What you're describing has a name and it isn't democracy: it's oligarchy.

[woevdbz]

As evidenced in the 2016 US elections, their collective power is limited. It is not directly the power to control the military and police forces.