what is your idea about lazy journalism that is commonplace in digitalized world?

Recently, the phenomenon of the prevalence of lazy journalism and its corresponding impacts has sparked a heated debate. The lazy journalism refers to a lack of original ideas and excessive copy and paste in the journalism industry. I am inclined to believe that lazy journalism is a minus, and I will analyze in the upcoming paragraphs and lead to a logical conclusion. At the outset, there are myriad reasons to disagree with lazy journalism. In the tech-savvy era, a journalist may copy news from internet and replace it with own synonyms as their own articles. But it can endanger many reputed newspapers as the information might be fake at times. Moreover, it makes it challenging for journalists to verify the veracity of their sources. For illustration, According to report from Monash University, a leading newspaper has many fake articles published from the internet. As a result, lazy journalism can be a major drawback in this technological world. Furthermore, another predominant reason for this problem for lazy journalism is the work stress caused by the editors in order to set up the difficult goals. Probing further, if both plagiarism and originality are not detected and penalized, it may become rampant. For instance, a recent report from the Oxford University states that around 80% of journalists copy work from various sources and modify it accordingly. Hence, lazy journalism will have no place in this digitalized world. In recapitalation, this essay discussed about lazy journalism in this modern world. In my opinion, lazy journalism has negative impacts and will never have original sources.