>The issue I take, is that there's actually very very little legitimate news being promoted. Blogs and detailed substack's have way WAY more interesting content

>The issue I take, is that there's actually very very little legitimate news being promoted. Blogs and detailed substack's have way WAY more interesting content than the New York Times on most topics. So you criticize them based on the idea of "legitimate news," but the standard you use for yourself is "interesting content." These are not the same thing and don't even necessarily overlap. There is also interesting illegitimate news and boring legitmate news, but these related forms of content don't exist in your argument because you're comparing the apples of your insides to the oranges of journalism's outsides. >because they quite literally have to share the story to keep the narrative(s) the same This isn't very charitable. What do you think is driving them to "keep the narratives the same?" What is the value of it?