I'm beginning to think journalists have a human interest bias that runs really deep, deeper than mere schmaltz.
Their fundamental project is to make history relevant to the little guy (no problems there), but also make the little guy relevant to history (dubious undertaking).
Conversation
Replying to
What kind of journalists? Data journalists? Fashion editors? White House correspondents? There's no such thing as a journalist.
1
2
Replying to
All of them actually. People who ground narratives in talking to living people and/or responding to live events, with ideas playing a supporting and mostly backstage role at best.
1
1
Show replies
Replying to
Perhaps it’s a projection of the role of journalism itself: By definition, commentary from the sidelines of history as it unfolds. If the little guy is relevant, the journalist’s relevance is assumed.
Replying to
Journalism’s biz model is to sell to lots of “little guys”, so it makes sense (for them) to turn the little guy into content as well. Producers, consumers ♻️
Replying to
Doesn't populism push the little guy to the forefront? According to Blockchain philosopher Naval Ravikant, we will never again see an elitist president. It will be more of the scrappy Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.types




