On being a media skeptic

There is a difference between being a media critic and a media skeptic. A media critic sees some good in journalism.

But the skeptic sees the systemic rot and says it.

Journalism is the reseach equivalent of snake oil treatment.

To be blunt, it is mere quackery, nothing more.

As there is no science in it, it is no different to any other form of charlatanism.

It is hoodoo, no more reliable than a seance, or the Goat Gland Doctor.

So when people try to argue that journalism has its place, I disagree.

News dissemination has its place and it is critical to civilization.

But journalism is bunkum. Plain and simple.

And as a media skeptic, I do not enable bad methodology to pollute information.

Asking a media skeptic to buy into the snake oil of journalism is like asking a skeptic to endorse fake medicine.

Show me empirically backed information dissemination, and I will be all for it.

But enough is enough. It is fake news because an entire profession were too arrogant and lazy to be empirical about their jobs.