Some "journalism" is immoral, most of which falls into that category effectively /are/ advertisements being put into the public eye under the cover of journalism. You are painting so broad a brush in order to create a fundamental category error in your constructed straw man. You might fool others, but your argument holds no sway with me because it is utterly inane and transparent for what it is.
If you cannot articulate an actual point in response to me, I'd advise barking up another tree.
You presented a very concrete set of attributes that you call immoral.
> Words in general are not specifically crafted by teams of sociologists, psychologists, and marketing professionals to elicit a particular feeling at a particular moment in time to make me more psychologically susceptible to a particular belief or outcome
I have presented something, journalism, that does the same things. You claim that some journalism is not immoral which is true. It must follow for the same reason that some advertisements are not immoral either.
Seems like you don't have an actual argument - posting on a Y Combinator MARKETING page, no less.
Believe me, if journalists could tap the same set of resources as advertising does, they would. A really good editor can turn a mediocre piece to a good one, but it takes time, and 3-4 rounds of back-and forth. The same editor, working with a prodigiously talented writer, can turn a rough diamond into something absolutely incredible.
Disclosure: I've done about a decade of freelancing, and during that time was trained by old-school practitioners on how to structure my writing.
