tl:dr The Internet (WWW), with its ability to cite original sources, has rendered the MSM obsolete.
What he leaves out, unfortunately, is a quote from that same article that “Conservative UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has concluded that Ginsburg probably ‘“was the victim of a drafting error.’” As quickly pointed out by another tweeter.
What I want to talk about here is the WashPo article originally referenced. While this wasn’t actually a “hit piece” against Ginsburg, it makes a number of questionable assertions. Without any links or other references to more original information.
Even in 2005, this was (theoretically) unnecessary. If Ms. Marcus had actually been following the proper standards of Journalism (which I don’t know either way), she would already have had references to sources to back up her assertions. But traditional standards of “journalism”, inherited from the days when people weren’t reading on-line, and couldn’t have clicked on a link even if available, don’t require links to original sources.
The way today’s journalism has lost almost any touch with reality is exemplified by the WSJ’s despicable attack on Pewdiepie (archive), the effort by a phantom “far right group” (archive) calling itself the “Reagan Battalion” to smear “Far-right provocateur” Milo Yiannopoulos, and, of course, the constant attacks on our president.
I would say this is mostly due to the fact that the mainstream, dinosaur media is locked into the traditional standards. Readers aren’t expecting the data to back the MSM’s assertions, and most of them aren’t going to take the time with Google or other search engines to verify them.
Instead, like me, they probably just don’t believe anything they read from such sources. Even when the dinosaur MSM includes links, they seldom actually reference good evidence for assertions. Personally, I don’t believe that any link actually supports an assertion unless I follow it and see for myself.
Which, of course, slows down the reading process. Which is why the dinosaur MSM simply isn’t usually worth reading, unless a piece is part of a bigger issue, such as the attacks on Milo and Pewdiepie. And in these cases, even if the MSM hit-pieces don’t include links, their critics often do.
Right now, I’d say, we’re in a transitional stage where many people think MSM stories (emphasis on “story”), headlines, and Twitter tweets mean anything beyond a hook at your attention to dig deeper. But those of us who’ve kept up with technology know better.
Like many of the items I linked to above, the 21st century replacement for the “journalism” of the 20th century will eventually include proper links to proper sources. News media that don’t insist on such links from their authors will be considered no better than the rags at supermarket checkouts.
And this will include such dinosaur “news” organs as the WSJ, the NYTimes, WashPo, and so on. They’re just too big, and too set in their traditional ways, to adapt. As the President keeps pointing out, they’re “fake news”.
Not just because so many of their stories are outright lies, totally distorted, or dishonestly spun, but because the 21st century version of real news will include real links to real sources.