[eduction]

>The most obvious way forward is to support and encourage a different style of journalism that doesn't try to present a fake view-from-above, in which bias is injected via quotes from hand-picked pseudo-experts, but rather a more analytical and data oriented form of news in which the only allowed quotes are things people said to other people, in public. This is the style of journalism found on Substack.

Your whole comment blew my mind but this part at the end is especially fascinating. Wow.

I would love to see more of that approach you outline. At the same time, don't you think any journalists who goes that route will get slammed for not having the requisite expertise? Or maybe the data will "speak for itself."

[origin_path]

They will certainly get slammed as such by other journalists, but whether readers care or not is an open question. There are some very successful writers on Substack who are successfully monetizing blogging-oriented journalism, that rejects the classical style in favor of "here's what I think and my biases, here's facts and data to back it up". It works well for analysis and data journalism, perhaps less so for original reporting of the "earthquake in Indonesia" type.