How has journalism changed in the Internet era?

It's become far more sensationalistic and tabloid-ish in nature. Too many misleading headlines, skewed stories to titillate the masses and a whole lot less real analysis. But that's only this retired media manager's opinion.

Wider coverage and reporting, but often less in-depth content. Greater chance of small news being heard, but still too much kowtowing to the corporates who pay for advertising.

The biggest and most widely publicized change in journalism has been the increasing involvement of and expectation of involvement by the readers and audience including the relationship between the publisher and reader.

It's far more reliant on asking its userbase inane questions to create a simulation of discussion. It especially relies questions that could provoke something meaningful to their audience if the journalists took the time to present researched information with thoughtful analysis to their audience, but the questions become inane because they are presented as topics of debate or discussion for the uninformed members of the public to hash over without any useful supporting information or context.

Journalism, as in doing actual research and presenting a balanced view, simply doesn't exist any more.

Today's "journalist" is nothing more than a glorified blogger whose research is spending a few minutes Googling any info that "proves" their predetermined point.

Confirmation bias is stronger than ever.

gaijininfo has a good point. So many articles appear like personal blogs with a personal agenda.

They have to know that there's a difference between journalists and personalities. Just because you have a mic doesn't automatically make you a journalist. (For one, you have to follow the journalism code of ethics.) Even reporters realize most of the time what they're doing is not journalism.

Well, journalism has largely become "journalism".

You can read more nonsense and be misinformed more than before?