> I think the journalistic epistemology it dismisses is actually a good one
I disagree with this. Basically, the journalistic "epistemology" the article describes is that journalists get access to information the rest of us can't see, so we have to take their word for whatever they say about it. That doesn't seem like a good thing to me. I don't want journalists, or anybody else, to pre-digest my information for me. I want to see the raw data. If they want to show me their spin on the data in a separate article, that's OK, but if I can't see the actual data they base their spin on, I don't trust their conclusions.
I disagree with this. Basically, the journalistic "epistemology" the article describes is that journalists get access to information the rest of us can't see, so we have to take their word for whatever they say about it. That doesn't seem like a good thing to me. I don't want journalists, or anybody else, to pre-digest my information for me. I want to see the raw data. If they want to show me their spin on the data in a separate article, that's OK, but if I can't see the actual data they base their spin on, I don't trust their conclusions.