Since we're thinking about the lines between "criticising journalism", "piling on individual journalists", and "outright abuse", here's my input. /1

Anytime I've seen the bonfire start and I've taken time to look, inauthentic* accounts are the most common source of the worst abuse.

(*look up the various kinds and markers. They go from sock-puppets to Russian troll farms, there isn't room.)

It's always mystified me, that journalists of all people are so *awful* at identifying this.

It's important, because the media community responds to the frauds in two ways: treating frauds as real; and insulating their community against legitimate and civil criticism.

Both of these are highly desirable outcomes to a troll-herder.

Media contributes to its own deligitmisation, by withdrawing from the community it serves.

Journalists legitimise and extend the reach of inauthentic accounts, by treating them as real people.

Journalists need to understand this stuff, instead of reacting to (or, Prominent Activist, retweeting them) the frauds. Any number of experts would happily do a one-day "Bots 101".

Journalists, stop playing the Russian Gambit, you can't win. Engage with real readers, block frauds. And learn the bloody difference.

PS, I've had journalist abuse stalkers since they had to use typewriters. I got schooled back when a letter with an egregious typo had my boss say: "Richard, it's from some minor in the Russian embassy, they do this all the time, and they can't type English." Just saying.