I don't know if it's just me and my bias against the current state of the mainstream press but this article read like a pile of unacknowledged contradictions.

I don't know if it's just me and my bias against the current state of the mainstream press but this article read like a pile of unacknowledged contradictions. The author advocates for the people's "right to know", but complains that social media has made it possible for people to reach a mass audience without relying on the press' megaphone. Surely social media increases people's right (or at least opportunity) to know, unless you consider that only what the press publishes is worth knowing. It goes on to complain about the influence that social media has given powerful people yet acknowledges that the press itself is owned by the same powerful people. And then we have the complaints about "tabloids" against respectable journalism at a time when the New York Post was the only paper with the guts to publish an election scandal while the Times is peddling public shaming campaigns that do little but lower the level of public debate. The title, at least, sounds right and if journalism want to have any power, they'll need to find wat to be indepedent. the recent case of Glenn Greenwald has shown that this seems to be the only road left.