> When the OP says "politicians prefer it when objective media goes away and gets replaced with advocates" and you say (paraphrasing) that "the objective media

> When the OP says "politicians prefer it when objective media goes away and gets replaced with advocates" and you say (paraphrasing) that "the objective media has responded to financial incentives and become advocates [so they can gain viewers and credibility with Congress]" you aren't saying anything different. I know, hence my "to your point" > To then say "gosh I'm really mad at the media because they're bad" is like being mad at raindrops because they're wet. The media landscape degraded in the last ~decade. Raindrops have always been wet. I don't propose a solution because I don't understand the dynamics exactly. I don't think I have to understand the dynamics exactly (or have a solution in mind) in order to talk about the problem. > I see too many people saying "I hate the media, and [my preferred politicians] rail against the media, ergo I will vote for [my preferred politicians]" failing to recognize that this dynamic simply reinforces the feedback loop rather than changing anything. Of course, this doesn't describe me. Contrary to the media portrait, you can't draw any reasonable inferences about someone's politics based on whether they support or criticize the changes to the media landscape.