I want to start out by stating that I have no argument with the thesis that journalism has a lot of gaps but I don't like the title - the essay itself discusses how journalism's resistance to recognizing diversity is pernicious and it's hard to change even when there's a mission to do so. But without a careful read the title makes it seem as if it's in decline; as if there was some time in the past where journalism was better at targeting a readership beyond a tight demographic.

What's interesting is that the article that he uses in his anecdote (subtitled "Want a delicious new way to eat rice? As in, a way that doesn't involve eating it from a little white takeout box?") was an AP wire story that ran internationally making it even more ridiculous. It took a bit of effort to find anyone who included a byline with a name rather than just "Associated Press" but the origin is from a freelance food writer. With that in mind the context is very different from the side of the authorship but it does reflect either poor editorial decision or a lack of diversity of target readership to choose to run that story (but also it's National Post in his example - I'm surprised they didn't add annotations describing rice as "ethic food"). Luckily this is an opinion and not a report so rigor of digging up the article and realizing it was an AP wire isn't as important here and it doesn't harm the thesis.

The reason I point write this at all is I enjoyed a bit of irony reading comments that talked about the decline of journalism and how social media is helping that betrayed that they clearly did not read the essay which is an enlightenment and call to action rather than an exposition and a warning.

This isn't the "journalism is dying" piece the headline would make you think it is but I'd urge you to read the whole thing (it's not long) and ignore the headline altogether (which is a habit worth cultivating in and of itself).