It's almost like Der Spiegel has become self aware is now trying to make it transparent that they're not even trying to be good journalists.
I laughed at that point.
I cringed through the rest of the posting, not because of your output, but because of what you are describing. Its not wrong.
But thats what you get with popular opinion. Or opinion in general. First there is the emotion.
I've posted in here (this forum) a behavioral psychology newsarticle that explored, how far people take it not to have to leave their own belief systems. They even forfeit part of the "free money" you give them in psychological experiments.
.
- And what you get with "opinion based journalism" is more of that.
I mean, I do have my guilty pleasures as well - reading my favorite opinion based blogs and yes I am even copying opinions (Think "So videogames arent the devil?!" reaction of a typical member of society - we do it all the time..
) but at the same time, I don't think that that can be the future of journalism.
We are getting more and more into "there might not be objective news at all" (everything is perspective) territory here. But before we do. The journalist thats writing that - probably really believes in what he writes. If you don't - one possible out is, that the journalist doesnt know what he is writing about. This has even become more likely with recent developments around financing media, time pressures, subversion (or at least agenda setting) through sponsors and even diminishing social status of journalists.
Now two things. First - the solution still is not not "burn it down" and only follow the bloggers you like on facebook. Second - this story (the journalist doesnt know what he's talking about), can be used by every ignorant person on this earth to discredit journalism "prima facie". Meaning - without looking at the article first. And in most cases they also do it on emotional grounds ("journalists dont "work", what have they even studied?"). So somewhere in this dichotomy lies problem and solution.
But then theres also a dictum ("geflügeltes Wort") that states, that every "expert in a field" has read journalistic articles about their field and thought to themselves - "they dont know what they are writing about". Not even just emotionally - but more factually. Some of it is oversimplification, some of it is thinking that follows social criteria, some of it is time pressure, some of it is the journalists personal opinion and some of it is that there are idiots among journalists as well. Coincidentally, they often are the most popular ones in terms of following..
Journalism is somewhere in between politics, responsible storytelling and truth. It isnt that they are right out political (sometimes they just publish what "sells"), it isnt outright making up a story - or "making" a story, and it isnt - "they are always lying". Its really a spectrum. It changes with age, with character. It changes with access and affiliation.
Its something that should be able to "dethrone" wrongdoers (that means for example "mobilize"), but at the same time should not be decoupled from the interests of their readers. Its hard.
But to bring it back - if you are going out of your way to dupe the audience with beautiful stories, that never happened - you arent a journalist anymore. But you still might be a blogger, or a youtuber - and dont even think twice about it. So in that sense, journalism is more a "sense of self" and "code of conduct" as well as having the funds to do any meaningful research at all. And the more people harp on them and tell them, that they are liars, while not paying for their work, and reading facebook feeds instead, the more this gets lost or harmed.
Journalists will be the first to be criticiszed by other journalists in any case. They at least have that going for them..
And it will be in public. So you all will know, and can point your fingers.