Thread by @AyoCaesar

This is a really thoughtful article, and I think it has implications for journalism outside of sports as well - in particular, lobby journalists.

theguardian.com/sport/blog/202…

Many journalists still hold to an idea that their job is solely to convey information between places where things happen, and the public; that criticism or analysis on their part would undermine their role in being a neutral means of transmitting information to ordinary people.

But that's not true any more: media has expanded exponentially, reporters are no longer the lone ferryman carrying news across the waters. Anyone with a smartphone has a direct line to the public sphere - and that has huge implications for the newsgathering role of journalists.

It means there's an increased, urgent need for active criticism and analysis at the same time as there's a limitation of the role as journalist as mere intermediary.

Faced with this existential crisis, there's a culture of journalists clinging to the rituals and public-facing pantomimes of the job. People want to feel like they're in an Aaron Sorkin drama, posting breathless clips of the behind-the-scenes flurry behind a breaking story.

The reality of the pressure on the industry rn doesn't live up to the liberal fantasy.

I think there are individuals and organisations which are actively trying to engage with these challenges - but many are in denial, and would rather club together than face up to criticism.

There's an extreme defensiveness when it comes to preserving the in-group/out-group distinction in journalism, whether that's the daily brouhaha of whether Owen Jones is a 'real' journalist, or the insistence that post-match press conferences are the cornerstone of democracy.

And I think a lot of this comes from the fact that many journalists find themselves ill-adapted to the various challenges being mounted to what their job fundamentally is.