With the old media everyone got the same story. It wasn't assumed to be true, because you knew who was saying this (it's hard for a large newpaper to hide their

With the old media everyone got the same story. It wasn't assumed to be true, because you knew who was saying this (it's hard for a large newpaper to hide their political affiliation), and the news piece was judged by other reporters on different papers and people you personally knew. Since you all were getting the same news, you could discuss them and argue about their validity. Now this just doesn't happen. Everyone gets a different news feed, which partly is the reason we need comment sections so much. And comment sections and forums were ok before the widespread use of mass censoring based on NLP or manual identification of political bias, pre-fabricated conversations, selective de-ranking and all other kinds of trickery. Simply put, it used to be that internet content was purely the result of individual personal effort, so there was something to trust behind every article, because you knew that someone was putting effort into it and getting almost nothing material in return. Now the validity of news pieces only boils down to trust, and I trust the established media more than random strangers and small companies trying to make a quick buck, because the established media can't hide lying and they have something to lose, their trustworthingness and billions of dollars. The same cannot be said for anonymous or pseudomymous internet companies that for all you know were created yesterday and will vanish tomorrow or after the next elections perhaps.