I'm not sure if you're being downvoted because readers disagree that media has too much power, uses that power inappropriately, or the resolution they infer fro

I'm not sure if you're being downvoted because readers disagree that media has too much power, uses that power inappropriately, or the resolution they infer from your last paragraph. However, I think it's clear that many media institutions have abused their power upon the foundation of their seminal integrity. They've had the power for a long time—and have instances of abuse—but not like we've seen the last few years. The notion that they have "too much" power, however, is a very, very dangerous one. Any forcible resolution for this is—or should be—unpalatable. (And that's usually the insinuation when one discusses "too much" anything.) It's clear that we need a reckoning among the people to help shift perception of what is deemed appropriate forms of news. I don't know that's possible in the current state of our culture, though. The technological landscape has transformed the psyche of the people with such rapidity and force the likes of which has never been seen on this planet. Some self-aware individuals recognize the psychological dangers of our current state and choose not to participate, but I don't know that there's enough of them to make a difference. Laziness, depersonalization, greed, envy... these are all rampant within our online communities, and all forms of media prey on our vulnerability to them. The world has largely transformed to a seething mass of unsustainable behavior. While the media has the power to at least influence a healthy message, they're desperately trying to maintain control... fire with fire. The only ethical response to this is rejection. Rejection of communities that engage in unhealthy behavior. Rejection of media that engage in unhealthy behavior. Rejection in general of the unhealthy behavior. Fortunately, a lot of people who grew up in the world before this insanity took over see how bad it's gotten. Others are burned and leave. Some never got involved. The best we can hope for is rapid acceleration to such a degree that people reject the forms of messaging that have taken the world, en masse. At this rate, that actually may happen. The worst that could happen would be one of either forceful rejection or such a slow burn that not enough jump ship. Who knows what will happen, but we have at most one or two generations for the majority to recognize this or the well is poisoned. For all the worry about global warming or communism or fascism or whatever, very few seem too concerned about the implosion that's been growing the last couple decades. I hate to use the phrase, "but this time it's different," because it's usually not. But this global connection that's been abused to infect our minds by charlatans is truly unprecedented in scale, force, and insidiousness. The world is increasingly addicted to new forms of mind drugs that are anything but apparent, and their use are rationalized, increasingly less optional, and devastatingly subversive. I know I sound like a madman, but if the state of our modern communities—in parallel with the growth of global connectedness over the last decade—doesn't reveal the cause, I challenge anyone to provide an alternative explanation. The internet is quite possibly the most wonderful and most insidious development by the human mind, ever. To enable and amplify the best and the worst of humanity is truly unique, and at such a devastating scale. And I don't think the human race is is equipped do anything but abuse it for the worst. Disclosure: I am a former singularitarian fast turning luddite.