I’m good with all of that except — isn’t your last comment an example of exactly what you are…
Chuck Warren

I don’t think the last comment is doing the same, because I’m speaking one on one to the reader. Here’s what I mean…

(a) As a writer, you ruin your credibility by lumping mass groups…
(b) Writers are ruining their credibility by lumping mass groups…

In (a) I am speaking directly to the reader. In (b) I would be lumping all writers together and presuming that “all” writers lump mass groups together, when in fact they do not.

To use a real example, instead of saying “millennials have a habit of…” it would be more accurate to go get the data and say “52% of millennials…”

Another one… “Republicans don’t believe in global warming..” — another generalization. Do the work. Go get the numbers. xx% of Republicans don’t believe in global warming.

One is believable and credible — the other is not.

I do agree that it’s easy for anyone to call themselves a journalist, and that whether one is or isn’t a “journalist” doesn’t necessarily speak of quality. There’s tons of good writers that aren’t journalists, and plenty of lousy writers that are.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.