A bot that churns out financial news is so far removed from what most journalism is. The fact that you think this represents a current, legitimate threat to hard, creative journalism shows how desperately you are grasping at straws to prove your point.

I see you also don't have a lot of experience with what actual journalism is-- you have that pretty vision in your head of hand-hitting investigative television fantasy.

That isn't the reality of news, the reality of journalism. News is beat reporting: getting reports from local council meetings; crime beat; obits; reading and restating new releases, be they from political candidates or corporations--- and yes, reworded financial reports as well. That was the bread and butter of newspapers across the country, until recently-- not Watergate, day in and day out.

And "disruption" has already sunk that industry. Just because it still exists doesn't mean we can ignore the contraction that happened there. The majority of papers across the nation have shuttered and consolidated-- and if it isn't automated news, it's outsourced Journalism. The local paper is a dying art-- that was something that fed families and informed communities.

I suppose you're also the type to pretend that Craigslist didn't have a profound impact on journalism's ability to survive? It did.

Logistics is more than driving trucks. Industrial is more than carrying buckets around.

The medical industry is more than medical billing and insurance and yet if we, say, moved to Universal Healthcare, would you say that wouldn't make a profound, negative short-term effect on the US economy and unemployment rate?

We are currently living in an economy with near 5% unemployment and some of the highest living standards in the world.

An unemployment rate which doesn't count those who aren't still searching, doesn't count the underemployed or those who work multiple positions to achieve a living wage.

As for the industrial revolution, the Smiths, farmers, loom makers and horse trainers of that era became factory workers. Recall The Jungle: do those conditions sound admirable?

I imagine that, perhaps, labor will be moved "to something more productive"-- and the price of said labor will be below subsistence. Or has the American worker seen gains in their real wages, enough to believe the ridiculous profits of the top companies in the country will trickle down to them when low-skill jobs can be done by a computer that doesn't complain and works twice the hours?