4 ms·

I don’t want to negate what this person is saying, but from an objective perspective, is this the most diverse source of news we’ve had in human history? I mea

I don’t want to negate what this person is saying, but from an objective perspective, is this the most diverse source of news we’ve had in human history? I mean 50 years ago it was just the big three right? ABC, CBS, NBC. Maybe the New York Times and the local paper on top of that? And as another person commented this article doesn’t include social media.

matthewmcg 5y ago
In broadcast television maybe. But most of the larger markets were served by multiple competing daily papers. Those have largely disappeared or are under common ownership and limping along as branded outlets of a few conglomerates.
resonious 5y ago
I had the same reaction. There's no way this is actually worse than before.
giantg2 5y ago
Well, there was also radio news. You could get news from around the world (mostly Europe) on shortwave. Not sure how common that was, but I do know my family and many immigrants in those generations did that. I still agree that overall there are more choices today. Just saying it wasn't that limited in the past. Edit: why disagree? Am I missing something?
uoaei 5y ago
I would reconsider your use of the word "objective" because your comment sounds like an entirely subjective (and anecdotal, and presumptive) perspective on this issue.
- mikkergp 5y ago
  My use of the term objective was to try and describe the numbers and not the substance of what they were saying. I guess I could have said from a quantitative perspective vs a qualitative perspective? I wasn't alive 50 years ago, so I can't really be subjective.
randcraw 5y ago
50 years ago (1972) there were thousands of magazines, newspapers, and radio stations in the US -- the vast majority of which were independently owned and operated. Today the number of newspapers is down 10X what they were then, and independent newspapers are down 10X more (~1/100). The number of magazines is down 5X. If you've noticed, even the best among them are really struggling for ad dollars. (Both the Economist magazine and The NewYorker now cost $9/issue, for a WEEKLY.) Perhaps worse is the loss of staff journalists -- the folks who give each periodical its personality and continuity. The majority of print journalists today are independent/stringers, with little prospect of sustaining that career. Outside of Oligarch-Six media, the rest of print media are struggling to survive. Hiring persistent staff has become simply unaffordable. For example, every one of the automotive journalists I've followed for decades have all 'retired' in the past few years. Alas, just about all print journalism not owned by a megacorporation is dead or dying today.

matthewmcg 5y ago

In broadcast television maybe. But most of the larger markets were served by multiple competing daily papers. Those have largely disappeared or are under common ownership and limping along as branded outlets of a few conglomerates.

resonious 5y ago

I had the same reaction. There's no way this is actually worse than before.

giantg2 5y ago

Well, there was also radio news. You could get news from around the world (mostly Europe) on shortwave. Not sure how common that was, but I do know my family and many immigrants in those generations did that. I still agree that overall there are more choices today. Just saying it wasn't that limited in the past. Edit: why disagree? Am I missing something?

uoaei 5y ago

I would reconsider your use of the word "objective" because your comment sounds like an entirely subjective (and anecdotal, and presumptive) perspective on this issue.

mikkergp 5y ago
My use of the term objective was to try and describe the numbers and not the substance of what they were saying. I guess I could have said from a quantitative perspective vs a qualitative perspective? I wasn't alive 50 years ago, so I can't really be subjective.

randcraw 5y ago

50 years ago (1972) there were thousands of magazines, newspapers, and radio stations in the US -- the vast majority of which were independently owned and operated. Today the number of newspapers is down 10X what they were then, and independent newspapers are down 10X more (~1/100). The number of magazines is down 5X. If you've noticed, even the best among them are really struggling for ad dollars. (Both the Economist magazine and The NewYorker now cost $9/issue, for a WEEKLY.) Perhaps worse is the loss of staff journalists -- the folks who give each periodical its personality and continuity. The majority of print journalists today are independent/stringers, with little prospect of sustaining that career. Outside of Oligarch-Six media, the rest of print media are struggling to survive. Hiring persistent staff has become simply unaffordable. For example, every one of the automotive journalists I've followed for decades have all 'retired' in the past few years. Alas, just about all print journalism not owned by a megacorporation is dead or dying today.