In other words, the problem with journalism is not just digital media, it is credibility. On national polls, journalists come out very poorly. People properly do not trust them.

Once, in the US, journalism was openly biased. You knew where the reporter was coming from, and so did he. Now, it is quietly biased, and usually even the journalist doesn’t know his own biases. In the past, journalists came from the ordinary population. They didn’t get a J-school degree – they just turned out to be good at journalism.

Now journalists are a self selected club, and as such comprise an echo chamber – their biases are reflected by their peers and as a result, are invisible to them. “Everyone thinks that way.” Journalists are trained with the conceit that they are objective observers – something no human is capable of. They are taught to avoid bias by balance – contrasting viewpoints – a deux ex machina which fails in its job.

In the last 60 years or so, journalists in the US have created the myth of objectivity. This gives them the moral authority to resist “editorial influence” by the owners of the media. But they also resist correcting their own biases, because they believe themselves unbiased.

So in the new digital media, we see a new group of journalists – younger, with the biases they picked up in college and the mass media – themselves imagining that they are objective, and that they too are “speaking truth to power” – as long as the power isn’t… say… Islamists, or even Obama.

I would be much happier if the news was reported by ordinary literate citizens.

So here goes:

I think there’s a lot of value in the news journalist “effacing his/her personality behind facts”, and in solid structure and format. One thing that worries me is that digitial journalism seems to be driving a personality-driven format, with the journalist-as-celebrity. Look at Guido Fawkes for politics, Milo Yiannopoulos for tech (including posting about this weight loss on his online magazine, The Kernel) or Perez Hilton for celebrity news, even. Social media seems to drive a certain form of narcissism, where everyone is desperately trying to cultivate and show off an online personality, and to an extent that same culture seems to influence digital journalism too. Of course there were always plenty of narcissistic personalities in old print media, but the required structure of reporting — the impersonal who/what/why/where/when — meant that it didn’t influence their journalism as much. I like the stale old structure to an extent, it serves a purpose. This morning I went to the Guardian website to find out the latest on the Pistorius case, but rather than being able to find the information I need quickly — in a simple, short news story in the traditional format — I had to scroll through an endless live blog to find out what had happened in the courtoom.

I guess my point is that I think there is value to structure in news writing (surely it means more concise news stories for one?), and I’m skeptical about whether letting a journalist’s personality into news is a good thing.

That said, I’m a huge reader of the kind of longform, narrative journalism you seem to be encouraging. I’d love to see more of it, particularly here in Ireland where it’s always been a rarity. But I reckon that kind of journalism belongs on the features pages or in the magazine, rather than in the news section.

Also more entertaining and/or engaging. Which can lead to more page views. Which directly affects the profitability of a web site. Less authoritative, more personal, leaving more room for feedback from readers in the form of comments. And more feedback means longer time-on-site and multiple visits to check reponses to comments.