I don't have a degree in Journalism - I have a degree in Mass Communications with a concentration in Journalism. I worked as a reporter for two papers and was the editor of a third. Than I left the field in disgust.
Those experiences were eye-openers, and even back then (I graduated in '83) I saw big problems with newspapers and predicted many of them would go out of business. I saw them busy cutting their own throats.
For one thing, the "publishers" weren't publishers.
The first paper I worked for, the "publisher" was the son of the owner and did nothing but sit in his office reading newspapers and magazines. I saw him do exactly nothing. The "general manager," who ran the paper, was incompetent. The "editor's" articles were full of grammatical errors and misspelled words, and the general manager didn't have a clue.
That newspaper is now out of business.
The second newspaper...the "executive editor" was an extremely unpleasant tiny little man with a Napoleon complex. I don't know how long he lasted but it wasn't all that long before he went someplace else. As far as I know the paper is still in business. Perhaps I should check. (I just did - it's out of business.)
The third paper, of which I was the editor...ohmigod.
It was a weekly and owned by a daily that was the county paper. All the top spots at the daily were reserved for graduates of "elite" colleges such as Harvard and Yale - and this newspaper was right in the middle of the Midwest. If you graduated from a local university you were completely shut out of the top spots.
The publisher, who had an MBA (worthless degree) was a second-rater, and second-raters hire third-raters, and third-raters hire four-raters. I saw catastrophes galore, and paper of which I was the editor is now out business.
Many papers which have been around for 150 years are now out of business. I predicted it.
Journalism degrees are worthless. Reporters should start at the bottom and work their way up, like Jimmy Olsen, cub reporter.
MBAs are worthless degrees and I would never hire one under any circumstances. They are always two steps behind the market and in their arrogance they never know it.
In perhaps my first class in Journalism I was taught the media is a "gatekeeper." They decide what's news and what isn't. They're losing that ability and are hysterical about it.
A lot of their loss of being a gatekeeper has to do with the Internet. In fact, without the Internet and social media I doubt Trump wouldn't be on his way to being President, which is driving the MSM crazy because they are helpless to do anything about it.
Even some of the bigger sites on the Internet are trying to be gatekeepers, such as Facebook and Twitter. Does not Zuckerberg realize Facebook can go the way of Myspace? Does he not understand that's the importance of competition? That people can go to other sites and even open them up themselves?
Twitter has tried to ban people but had to back down. When someone has eight million followers what else can they do?
The market rules - and good thing too.
I no longer read newspapers and haven't for years. I don't watch TV news, either, although some of them do a good job, except for the political talking heads (there is a good reason they're called "the chattering classes").
I get all my news off of the Internet, and yes, there is a lot of garbage I have to filter. But that's not hard. Read two stupid articles in a row and that site is gone forever.
My site is actually pretty small. I get about 1500 readers a day and make about $400 a year.
You know what? That's just fine with me. I prefer this is wasting my time with that dinosaur known as the MSM, because I can say what I want and no one can interfere with it.
By the way, the MSM thinks it's smarter and more moral than you. You are the unwashed masses who need guidance from your superiors. The ones I have met, on the other hand, have been stupid and arrogant.