I think the prima facie case for journalists is incredibly strong, even for some of the more questionable types of journalism mentioned in the comments like explanatory journalism, narrative reporting and opinion.
I think a lot of the problem today has to do with media literacy: a lack of knowledge among casual readers/viewers about the purpose of journalism, and the difference between the various kinds (and what those kinds allow in an ethical/professional sense).
However, I don’t think the conversation ends there. Given that environment, institutions need to do a better job supporting journalism in a way that reflects that knowledge. I don’t know if it’s possible for a paper that calls itself “the paper of record” to include an opinion section, or even lifestyle reporting, and maintain its “objective” journalistic reputation.
Opinion, interpretative, and explanatory journalism is probably best life to the magazines, or websites that explicitly share a particular editorial viewpoint. The Economist is a great example of this type of institution.
I think a lot of the problem today has to do with media literacy: a lack of knowledge among casual readers/viewers about the purpose of journalism, and the difference between the various kinds (and what those kinds allow in an ethical/professional sense).
However, I don’t think the conversation ends there. Given that environment, institutions need to do a better job supporting journalism in a way that reflects that knowledge. I don’t know if it’s possible for a paper that calls itself “the paper of record” to include an opinion section, or even lifestyle reporting, and maintain its “objective” journalistic reputation.
Opinion, interpretative, and explanatory journalism is probably best life to the magazines, or websites that explicitly share a particular editorial viewpoint. The Economist is a great example of this type of institution.