> It's no wonder that morale among journalists is at an all-time low. Is any other profession held to such an impossible standard?

Morale is not low amongst journalists because the job is tough, it's low because they're being fired all over the place, pay has decreased, and corporatism is making the whole thing pretty mediocre.

"Is any other profession held to such an impossible standard?"

Teachers, but point taken.

> They want anonymous sources named "in the spirit of truth," without grappling with the reality that doing so would instantly dry up anyone risking their job, or worse, to provide information.

There's some cases where I rather someone put their name up or I don't want to hear it, the only exception is give me some damning proof? Give me something that qualifies your anonymous remarks or its not worth anything to me, its just he said she said.

Regarding this specifially, I don't care enough, I am more curious about the legal case and how it will play out though.

As far as the anonymous sourcing goes, that has to do with the exposed issues that some news outlets simply claim to have “sources” and when exposed they either don’t or they aren’t credible.

There is a real trust problem Journalism will need to overcome and some of it is self inflicted

And the biggest problem of all: They expect it to be free.

Are you sure that a lot of individuals hold those contradictory positions?

Or do the contradictions only exist across multiple persons?

(Tangent: anyone know if there's a term for this fallacy? I.e., claiming that an attribute exists for some/all of a group's members, when in fact that attribute only applies to the collective itself?)

In my experience (dramatized):

Teachers: parents expects teachers to deliver personalized instruction to a classroom of 30+ while adhering to standardized testing targets. They are expected to act as surrogate parents yet threatened with lawsuits and suspensions when they attempt to enforce discipline. They are asked to spend their own money on supplies, but I think we've had enough levies to raise funds for our local district, haven't we? They are treated as lazy, agenda-driven agents by their community neighbors. They get the summers off, so I think I've heard enough about their "burnout".

Doctors: patients demand certainty from a science based on probability. They expect empathetic listening but it must come within the fifteen-minute slots insurance and healthcare network financial officers dictate. Any story of a missed diagnosis is evidence of idiocy or contempt. Patients want pharmaceutical fixes for decades of poor lifestyle choices without side effects or changes to habits. They're all just paid for by the pharmaceutical industry anyway, so better if they just give me the prescription I saw a TV ad about. And why won't they just do what ChatGPT said they should do, anyway? Besides, they're all rich, right?

> Is any other profession held to such an impossible standard?

Almost all, to varying degrees, with the expectation increasing the more you deal with people that are outside that field. People seriously underestimate the challenges and difficulties of things they have little experience with while overestimating their ability to do it.

'How hard can it be to ask someone who knows what's going on and write that anyway?'

I want journalists to try to answer the 6 W's and make an effort to represent the stated positions of all parties mentioned. At least with that effort, you can have at least a chance at seeing what bias is in play. Most "journalism" fails on this metric by a wide margin.

Is any of this really any different than any other time in history, though?

And they want it for free

That's their problem. They're trying to give people what they want instead of being objective. They're supposed to be objective. What's that you say? Their objectivity is not rewarded? Well, neither is this.