"journalists are extremely lazy by default, and need their stories pre-drafted and handed to them"

This seems to be a consensus opinion on HN. I have no idea if it's a majority opinion, but it's fairly typical. The "journalists are lazy/stupid/inept" argument generally misunderstands what journalists do, how they work, and how they pick (or, as is more often the case, how they're assigned) their coverage. If anything, it gives some journalists too much credit, and for the wrong things.

I'm not a professional journalist, though I've written frequently for some major and minor publications. My typical process looks like this:

1. Pitch a bunch of story ideas to my editor.

2. Have 99% of those ideas rejected for various reasons: too narrow; too wonky; not enough meat on the bone [1]; not timely enough [2].

3. Settle on a topic that is somehow deemed acceptably timely, broad, approachable to general audiences, and well substantiated by some degree of data or prior coverage.

The astute reader will start to see how objections [1] and [2] come into direct conflict. By definition, breaking something new means covering ground that hasn't been covered before (or at least not often, or not in depth). But having prior substantiation often means being able to point to pre-existing coverage, as proof that your topic is of some interest to the public. [3] Also, you have to sort this all out on a deadline: anything from the end of the day to the end of the week, per story. (As an exercise: try investigating, substantiating, and beautifully composing an in-depth story in a single working day).

[3] The public, as typically defined, is a very broad swath of readers. Even major tech sites, like TechCrunch, now have a very broad readership -- with highly varying degrees of technical sophistication, subject-matter expertise, and topical interests.

On the flip side, look at any of the blogs or publications that HN readers respect. Chances are, they write in greater depth. They are not afraid to get into the wonky, technical details of their coverage. They don't just give you charts and infographics; they give you their statistical reasoning. Niche publications can do this.

Broad publications theoretically can, but often choose not to, out of the belief that the effort/payoff ratio just isn't there. It's a lot of effort that will appeal to only a sliver of their readerships. Deep coverage, or investigative coverage, or breaking new ground, requires a shitload of hard work. It is extremely tough on a standard deadline. It often requires a dedicated budget, and a broadly extended deadline, just to ensure that the writer(s) can afford to develop it.

Bottom line: I don't disagree with you. Most tech journalism sucks. That said, I don't blame the writers per se. They are the proximate end of a very long chain. Maybe some of them are capable of writing the stories we'd want to read. Maybe not. But they don't get the chance in the first place.

Before we impugn the entire field of journalism, let's be clear which publications, and which branches of journalism, we're impugning. It's silly to paint the whole field with one brush. I'm not saying the ratio of wheat to chaff is a good one, in the aggregate. But there is definitely wheat to be found. For every two dozen tossed-out, deadline-harried stories you find, I can point you to one or two amazing pieces of long-form writing. Sometimes the former and the latter are produced by the same writer. It all depends on the publication, its business objectives, and its beliefs about the demands of its average audience. The stuff you read in TechCrunch, for example, is meant to be consumed and immediately understood by almost everyone: you, your non-technical friend, and even your Baby Boomer parents. There's a certain type of material that fits that broad audience's tastes. Chances are, it's not the type of material that moves readers like us.