I wish you wouldn't be so dismissive of journalism and journalists. What they provide is not filler. Controversial though this opinion may be around here, there is serious value in having an actual carbon-based life form -- one who has spent years or decades covering whatever beat -- provide context and insight for the quotes and data. That they have become a dying breed spells real trouble for our civic life.

The journalists you describe are so few and far between that there needs to be a different term for them. The vast majority of the 'news' out there isn't anything close to what you described.

Agreed in an age where twitter storms are worthy of front page news.

The system is not set up to reward them, if there was a genuine demand we might see more of them.

The unfortunate truth is that your clickbait and byte sized arguments are what people want. Trying to solve it from the top down is a lost cause.

The HN crowd does not need context and insight, they can just google a few keywords and then skim a wikipedia article to achieve the expertise necessary to argue with others on a public forum...

I think you described how modern journalism works. Except skimming Wikipedia is often optional.

Are you serious? Journalists have templates for news articles they just fill with some new data every time statistics numbers are released or a politician speaks.

> This would put an end to filler-based journalism.

No it might put an end to the filler-producing journalists, the so called journalism would still get produced, albeit by a bot.

The real journalists (in terms of a better differentiation) would then be even more drowned out in an ever growing dessert of CGH (computer generated headlines).

Put an end to filler based journalism? That would be nice but don't you think that they will just evolve around your trick?