Could you elaborate?

[…] The last few years have been basically “get it written, get it out the door and fact check later if time allows”. […]

[…] Anecdotally, it would explain a great deal.

[…] it […] would [also explain] the almost certain fact that you personally choose not to actually pay for journalism

I’m not sure I follow your logic. Could you clarify what you mean?

[…] the almost certain fact that you personally choose not to actually pay for journalism, despite criticizing it liberally.

Are you saying that one’s criticism of journalism is only valid if they pay for it?

[…] the almost certain fact that you personally choose not to actually pay for journalism […]

What makes you so sure that I would be opposed to paying for journalism?

I’m not sure I follow what you mean. Would you mind stating your point more explicitly?

What do you mean by “crowdsource” in this context?

Personally, I’m asking it because I’m considering running an instance of my own, and I want to know what to expect. This is an issue that concerns me.

I’m not sure I understand your point. Essentially the only point that I was making was that for what’s written to not be considered conjecture, any claims that it makes must be cited ^[1].

And yes sources are required but that doesn’t mean that’s ALL that’s required or you wouldn’t have newspapers or organisations, just some people calling themselves journalists that have a bunch of sources.

I agree that the existence of sources aren’t themselves examples of journalism.

[…] The idea used to be that you find a news source that is the most reliable. Now half the world just finds the one that confirms their biases the most […]

How are you determining/measuring reliability?

[…] how are you fact checking, are you finding people with expertise and contacting them or googling and using whatever shite websites come up as a source? […]

It depends on the context.

[…] However simply doing a bit of work does not earn you the title, just like replacing a light switch at your house does not make you an electrician […]

Hm, I’m not sure that that’s a fair comparison. If it is assumed that an electrician must be licensed in order to practice as one (and assuming that they can only call themself an electrician if they practice as one), do journalists have similar requirements? I may simply be ignorant, but I’ve not found any examples that a journalist must be licensed in order to practice. Such licensing feels like it would start infringing on fundamental rights.

[…] What source could a reporter sitting on a street in a civil unrest cite? […]

Imo, footage, audio, etc.

[…] Scientific findings usually have published works as their primary source. […]

In that case, imo, the initial reporting would be the research paper, and the literal root source would be the data that they collected.

[…] Someone has to create the primary source at the point of something happening or existing. […]

Presumably the event was recorded, or the thing existing measured. Imo, these recordings and measurements would be what’s cited and reported on as novel information in a news article. I could possibly be convinced otherwise, but I think that the mere action of recording, or measuring isn’t news on its own — it must be published.

[…] over time you get a feel for who the serial liars are and who are generally reporting faithfully

Sure, but even then I would still like to see cited sources; without them, my trust would begin to erode.

[…] Fact check everything that doesn’t feel right (or anything that feels too reductive or simplified) […]

Ideally, imo, the news outlets could lift some of that burden by citing their own sources so that I don’t have to do their investigative work for them.

Are you saying that any claims made by “legitimate news outlets” can be trusted without cited sources simply because they are deemed “legitimate”?

[…] I’m not going to play along with bad faith questioning of common knowledge.

Leaving aside the “bad faith questioning” component, how would you handle requests for proof of what you are calling “common knowledge” in general?

If I tell him the sky is blue, and he asked for a source, am I obligated to provide that as well? […]

Imo, while not exactly proper science, a quick source for such a claim could be a simple color photo of the sky.