Re: tech journalists should stick to semiconductors, isn’t it a failure of editorial policies? People click away when they read “nanometers”, but they share when they see “Yeezy”. It’s the buziification of a journalist segment that has no legacy to fall back on and can get very dry very fast.
Re: what should be done.
I think it’s a growing process of maturing, on all levels, media buyers, media owners and media producers. And yes, I said media producers because journalism simply doesn’t work anymore, not in the previous form it existed. It’s like arguing for going to the library when you have a internet conexion in your pocket. Yes, there is value in a library, but it needs to be reinvented in the form of wiki’s to actually have utility.
Same goes for regulations, consumers and journalism. Once the dust settles, and people find a better footing they develop standards and from there values can grow. Applying aging “regulations” on virtual transnational industries is childish. I think there are some very good examples of deconstructed journalism that broke “inside dealings” better than conventional journalism/regulation ever managed in pre-internet days. All you need is a camera and a lead and you can bring down an industry. The internet will do everything else, publish, promote, pressure, regulate and check back on it a couple of months down the line. Will it be elegant? will it be fair? accurate? No, but when you are moving crowds instead of individuals, you can’t micromanage the consequences and IMO, journalism at it’s core should never be concerned with damage control. That is not principle, that’s a outdated compromise of the principle.