What goes around comes around

I would like to talk a bit about bad food writing. By that I don't mean bad critique, but rather badly written articles about restaurants, food and wine.
First off, it's not just grammar and punctuation that I'm concerned about. I've been reading about food and wine for a long time, and I've never read so much BS (pardon the French) as what has been turned out in the local media lately. Say, a restaurant review that has about two sentences in it about the actual place, the rest being about the critic's choice of skirt for the evening. Quite an impressive feat, considering the one-page spread. I mean, if the restaurant was so mind-numbingly boring that the only positive thing about an evening there is the unlimited amount of time one can spend contemplating one's wardrobe, then maybe the article should have said so. But then, the five-out-of-five stars grade should maybe have been something different (or was that for the outfit? I get confused).

I've thought long and hard about why and how this dumbing down of what was once a reputable job has come about. Maybe I'm going to end up not having done myself a favor here, but I blame blogging and the social media. There is a considerable overlap between a blogger and a journalist. Just look at the definitions of the words:

So a journalist might be someone who keeps a diary, and a blog is an online diary. A blog can certainly reach a mass audience (for instance, Huffington post is a news blog, and is read by more people than, say, Barometern or Sydsvenskan), and there's nothing wrong with posting news on a blog (see yours truly).
However, despite the many similarities there are several quite crucial differences.
Research, for instance. One crucial point left out of the definition of a journalist. The idea that the output of someone that calls themselves a journalist should be factual and unbiased, as opposed to a blogger, who is someone you expect to put out general hearsay and very biased opinions (again, see yours truly). Journalists are in many cases required to cite at least three sources before publishing an article, just to make sure that what you're reading at breakfast is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
So why are we reading so much garbage? Maybe because an increasing number of bloggers are considering themselves to be journalists (blogging about news), and are increasingly relying on social media such as Twitter for sources. Now I don't know about you, but a 140-char tweet doesn't exactly sound like the best and most reliable source of information to me, but sure, it IS a source. ONE. And if it's the only source you've got, then maybe the accuracy of your facts are a bit dodgy. To put it plainly, the reason so much nonsense is floating around on the net is because the sources of blogs are other bloggers, and ctrl+c, ctrl+v is so much quicker than checking your facts. A blog should be the only space where in place of citing a source you can write "I heard from a mate".

So what do we end up with? We end up with that good old saying "What goes around comes around", and in this case it might neither be true or relevant but it's amplified anyway courtesy of the social media. To me, I don't particularly care if a blogger considers himself or herself to be a journalist. I sometimes consider myself to be a part of the cast of Star Trek, but that doesn't make it true. Yes, some bloggers are journalists, and vice-versa. But to me (again, this is a blog) it boils down to accuracy, authenticity and maybe most importantly quality. So if people are thinking that a particular skirt brand are a crucial part of the dining experience at a restaurant near you, you know who to blame for the dumbing down of the local food culture.