Mayhaps the problem lies in specialization. In my days at college, journalism majors (or their even weaker counterparts, communications majors) weren't exactly the broadest intellectuals around. They were okay at learning their crafts, I suppose-- forming graphs, prioritizing info, remembering four of the five W's. But because they never seemed to show much interest in things like political science, history, hard sciences, economics or other the other things they would ultimately end up writing about, they never got the fifth W-- the "why."

Sure, those with street smarts can be good at the regular crap that fills the papers-- who shot whom, who was arrested, who ended up in the morgue and under what circumstances. They can write authoritatively on missing pets, troublesome neighbors and the occasional serial rapist. But get into anything remotely smacking of public policy, and they are clueless.

Clueless and often lazy. They learn to rely on sources with agendas who spoon feed them biased half truths, untruths and anti-truths, which they either don't know or don't really care are accurate.

Thank god for blogs. At least there you have people who have the underlying background and knowledge to know what they are talking about. And eventually, they can figure out how to write effectively.

No wonder these MSM clowns are so snarky about them. Just the way the Legions were snarky about the Vandals.

Not exactly the same brush I'd paint my fellow Journ. majors, DDman, but mine is hardly more flattering.

I found my classmates at Iowa to be quick, good spellers and proofreaders, and possessing an above-average inquistive mind. Conversationally, many topics were covered, opinions tossed about, but only rarely was any issue discussed in depth or extensively researched.

Very quickly did we fall into bad habits of over-simplification and a surprising inability too proofread our own work. Some of this is cockiness, some can be attributed to the nature of the modern beast which rarely allows time for extensive editing or rewrites. The Internet has amplified the need for speed, often at the expense of accuracy and depth..

I don't think "clueless" is as accurate as "lazy" when it comes to sources. This is where the idealism of "objective reporting" gets lost. Since the purpose of the newspaper is to make money, the reporter ultimately becomes an advertising whore, daring not to bite the hands that feeds, substituting "boiler plate" for investigation. Only rarely can a reporter earn a living writing what he thinks has real news value; at some point the lie of omission swallows ever noble effort to seek the Truth.

It only took me two years to develop such cynicism, and teaching seemed the only place where I could at least seek Truth. I'll tell you if I find any.

I had the same experience as the OP with journalism and communication majors in college in the 90's. They majored in beer, and minored in journalism. They always seemed to have lots of time on their hands since they didn't seem to need to study very much.

I think the fact that the vast majority of folks in journalism are left leaning is further proof of thier intellectual laziness, not because having left leaning views makes you intellectually lazy, but because they never shed the left wing propoganda taught in most colleges and got their own views.