Why is journalism dying and what are the skills of a competent journalist?

Well at least on the National stage everything is politicized nowadays. It used to be the journalist's role was find the facts, sort them out and lay them out so people could form their own opinions. Well the mainstream media tells everything with a slant and a bias it would seem. Left and Right. Even if the individual reporting is good journalistically, they put out other stories so the narrative as a whole is what they want you to believe. In short, much of it is propaganda. As my college English comp teacher said how many people watch tv and don't question a word of what is said? So we need good journalists, but ones who are neutral and will report what they see and hear. Who will not take it for granted for what people say and call them out when they're wrong.
Because all the major networks are owned by just a handful of people, the internet is probably the only thing left that can save us.
That said being a journalist of character is not something that will make you rich. If you want to do it, do it because your driven to do it. Keep an open mind, and question everything. Even what your learn in higher education because universities are just as biased and one sided. The worst enemy today to the freedom of speech are these "safe zones" on campuses that limit the open discussion and debate of issues by censoring those in dissent because of hurt feelings.
Freedom of speech means both sides have a voice. Even if the views on one side are reprehensible. However it doesn't mean you can lie, defame, or say things that are harmful to others (i.e. Yelling fire in a theater). But that goes without saying, as that's just living by the golden rule.

Journalism is dying because sensationalism has become more important than accuracy; entertaining supersedes informing: and those in the positions to disseminate the news are relying on their own understanding and views than paying attention to the viewers they serve. The modern newsroom is more concerned with sustaining a profit making model. The pursuit of truth now gives journalists the impression that both sides need to be heard, but the incorrect side does not deserve airtime in my opinion. One way I like to describe this is by saying you have those who believe 2+2+4 and those who believe 2+2=5. The people who believe it is 5, do not need airtime; the people who want to argue that this is the result if the numbers are in base 10... also do not need airtime. Journalists tend to select stories and write them as if their demographic is informed; they have forgotten that the public is coming to them to be informed. When they give credence to incorrect statements simply by putting them on the air, they hope the viewer is able to tell the difference between right and wrong. The public is not so discerning or educated: if they were, they would not turn on the news.

You hear phrases such as "On Your Side" or "Working for you" or "Fair and Balanced"... but the only part of those news stations that is true, is the words in the slogans, not the work on the screen or in print. I have sat in trainings at former stations where the consultants told us how to write to make the viewer believe we are doing our job: it is insulting and disrespectful, and it degrades the viewer into a number instead treating them like a person. News has become glorified gossip. I have always been under the impression that too much happens in a day for me to waste the 17 minutes I have to inform the person who watches my show (in a 30 minute show, you have about 4 commercial breaks of about 2 minutes each; weather is about 5 minutes between the first hit, last hit, and its main block).

In addition, newsrooms are just like most other workplaces: subject to the cattiness and childish cutthroat behavior that ignores the needs of the viewer for the sake of self-promotion and advancement. This results in a "crabs in a barrel" behavior where no one is on top because everyone pulls the other down. If journalism is not careful about changing the approach to covering news, it will find itself replaced with algorithms.

Hello!

I think the reason you've heard traditional media journalism is a dying breed (apart from the obvious technology angle) is that EVERYONE is now an expert and an editor and a journalist. Passion for a topic is their qualification. People are starting to believe one another's opinions, views and "expertise" more than the authorities. Objectivity is very lost on traditional media reporting and we only hear what they want us to hear. If journalism is your passion and your work goals, I would maintain your path and explore it to the fullest. If however, exploration, research and the beautiful act of short-form writing are your passions, I would also encourage you to widen your scope and explore other avenues that allow you to research and write and make a sustainable living (for instance -- passionate about food? Food editor and contributors for a magazine. Passionate about fitness and wellness? You can be a social media blog managers for a fitness company).

Also, super importantly: try and network. Look up the journalists at print and press firms that you ideally want to get into. Find their emails and get in touch with folks at the places you'd like to work -- for informational interviews. Very casual, very informal -- you are not looking for a job, you are looking for information about the field. "Dear So and So, I'm closely considering pursing a career in Blank, but I've heard a, b, and c. I really want to make an informed decision and am trying to gather research. Your company is one that I have long admired and respected....etc." Then ask them if they are willing to give you 15-20 minutes of their time at their convenience for a phone chat about their journey. It's a great opportunity for you to first, get the exposure and ask as many questions about the good, the bad and the ugly and secondly, it's a great way for you to get your enthusiasm and name out there.

Best of luck to you, Stefania