What Good is a Review?

Now, first i just listed problems with journalism in general, those were not verdicts that those elements are good or bad. I like the fact that anyone who wants to be a crack journalist can now be one with a simple laptop on his lap.

Now here's problem 5 actually, to be able to give context and solid, forward-looking analysis, you need some proper studie and theoretical thinking that a huge majority of proper journalists (the ones with journalist on their diploma's) do not have in any way shape or form. Hell, the best investigational journalists (those that have journalists in their jobcontract) are the ones with history diploma's because they are actually trained to look up information faster and better, are far more critical of that information and look for nuances as the rule, not the exception. And most important, as human scientist they are far more willing to admit they were wrong when sufficient evidence to the contrary surfaces, journalists don't receive that kind of thinking from the get go + their bias towards their reputation blocks out any attempt to grow it in the long run. Except when they become old tarts and start writing their memoires or stuff.