The "gate-keeper" media gave us the Iraq war. Anyone who was skeptical at the time was dismissed as a loon or worse, censored via refusing to cover X's viewpoin

The "gate-keeper" media gave us the Iraq war. Anyone who was skeptical at the time was dismissed as a loon or worse, censored via refusing to cover X's viewpoint. Vox's argument boils down to: FB regressed in area Y, therefore it's worse than the system that came before it. This is incredibly short-sighted thinking, to the point where it comes across as being deliberately so. I'm not a fan of click-baity articles, but the chance for all voices to at least be heard trumps (no pun intended) relying on what we may dub the "media elite" for our news. Time and time again they've shown they aren't the objective neutral actors in ALL cases they claim to be. Of course the WSJ or NYT will have a better overall track record than say buzzfeed, but that doesn't mean there won't be cases in which the the aforementioned elite media organizations don't try to skew the conversation. A good example of this is the ND pipeline. None of the established players are giving it the coverage it would seemingly deserve, without YouTube, and smaller outlets the majority of the country wouldn't know anything is happening.