The "mainstream media" encompasses such an enormous breadth of different things that any analysis of it would be unhelpful, and comments here are likely to be j

The "mainstream media" encompasses such an enormous breadth of different things that any analysis of it would be unhelpful, and comments here are likely to be just as unproductive. One person will say something while thinking about Fox News while another posts a response refuting it while thinking of The Economist and a third replies with something else while thinking of The Guardian. Edit: the article is actually quite interesting (yes I did originally comment before reading it!), although I disagree with some bits of it (e.g. maybe they're annoyed you missed a story that they read about elsewhere because it suggests there are other big stories you missed that they never found about). But it's not about "mainstream media" in general but a small particular part of it. Which is fair enough, and I don't think the title needs updating. But most or all of the comments here are generalising about the whole of the mainstream media, not just the particular type discussed in the article, in a way that I still think is unproductive.