3 ms·

You don't think the massive increase in the amount of time people spend reading social media over that period could have had anything to do with it?

• AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  Not really, no. The shift started long before that. Look, I'm old enough to remember the 1960s. Reporters then tried to be objective. They never succeeded perfectly, but they tried. The editor of the New York Times deliberately slanted editing a little right, because he knew his reporters slanted a little left. He literally had them put on his tombstone "He kept the paper straight". Nobody aspires to that now. It's not just that we consume more. It's not just that economic pressure has made them have to pump out more stories with less resources. They're not trying for what they tried for before. They gave up on trying to be objective. Yeah, they can't do it perfectly. But the difference really matters. And it will eventually matter to the media. If they aren't going to do what we need... then we don't need them any more.
• incomingpain 1y ago
  >You don't think the massive increase in the amount of time people spend reading social media over that period could have had anything to do with it? Invented long after the problem started. Not even a factor. Another option you might pick up is aggregated news, google news came out in 2002; but some existed before. RSS was invented by netscape in 1999. This likely is the causal relationship. When people can see a news event and literally see the lies from the media for themselves. There's no going back.