Matt Levine, much like most journalists, does not create any of the content, he just writes about it. E.g. etcetera the stories he tells are usually of 3rd parties (like what's happening in financial markets).
Would be much more interesting if he had personally experienced or orchestrated what he discusses. Otherwise you may as well just listen to anyone.
EDIT: As some people are responding and confused about how journalism works: E.g. he wrote about Elon Musk today yet is just getting his information from other articles or Twitter as I doubt he is speaking with Elon Musk or involved in the deal. At that point it's just hearsay.
No offense, but this is silly. The whole purpose of journalism is to report what is happening to other people.
Writing about your first hand accounts is not journalism. If for no other reason than it would be inherently biased. We have a term for stories from a person's life written by the person: autobiographies.
The BBC puts someone on the ground in Kyiv while it's being shelled. They write about what they see and learn while there--and you don't think that's journalism?
To be clear, the criticism of Levine from the GP is total bunk, but this definition is weird.
In the past, yes, but I mean what he writes about now. E.g. he wrote about Elon Musk today yet is just getting his information from other articles or Twitter. At that point it's just hearsay.
So say a science writer reviews peer-reviewed literature to write about some technology or technological claim (let's say CRISPR) but has done none of that direct research themselves...are you saying they are just writing hearsay?
Now maybe you can qualm about where he gets his information and how reputable it is, but I think your standard for journalism differs from most.
That's not a prerequisite to journalism, though I guess that can be your standard for it. Musk is notoriously media-hostile, which means it's often very difficult to get direct quotes or responses from him on a story that doesn't try to flatter him. By your standard, that'd mean Musk has unilateral ability to discredit journalism by just not participating.
He has been offering analysis and commentary on the process since the beginning, floating theories for various parties’ positions and debunking silly ideas that were being taken seriously at the time.
Well good thing he's not a journalist. He writes a comedic opinion column that pulls from his experience as an investment banker and M&A lawyer. He's a blogger.
Au contraire, the white house press pool gives you unconsidered takes because they have to keep in the good graces of those they're reporting on. You get an inherently biased take
He writes opinion and analysis. You don't have to only report on primary sources for your work to be seen as journalism or for it to be useful. Your claim is pretty bizarre.
