The linked article from NiemanLab [1] is a really odd read. It ends like this: "It’s been said that we get the media we deserve: that the journalism we see is

The linked article from NiemanLab [1] is a really odd read. It ends like this: "It’s been said that we get the media we deserve: that the journalism we see is a reflection of business structures and audience decisions, not the result of an elite’s decisions to shape public opinion. There’s a lot of truth to that. But the information we produce and consume is generated by human beings, not systems, and those human beings have just gotten the shock of their professional lives." So he starts by saying that the journalism we see is not the result of an elite's decisions to shape public opinion as if it is a good thing (which you would probably agree with). Then the next line says that the result of the opposite - the unwashed masses? - is (some bad thing will occur). At this point, you are probably expecting something neutral to follow. I mean, after all, the author talks about the journalism profession, which is supposed to provide both sides of the picture. What actually follows is this: "If we’re going to build a better environment for news, we need to think about these issues in a much bigger context than one election night. And it’ll take everyone — journalists, readers, tech companies, and more — to make it happen." Great, so the author has just defined himself, Facebook, the general media and the people who agree with his views as the "elite" who wants to "fix" the problem by shaping public opinion in a way which is more palatable to him. Maybe this attitude is what caused this "systemic shock"? [1] http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/11/the-forces-that-drove-this-elections-media-failure-are-likely-to-get-worse/ http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/11/the-forces-that-drove-this-...