The traditional news business has undergone a steady and steep contraction for quite some time. While yellow, sensationalist and politically biased newspapers have always been a big part of the picture, it was a phenomena that the serious news outlets were at least embarrassed by. There were taboos against reporters working for campaigns, ever. In fact if your worked in PR, or for any campaign, you tended to have a lifetime exclusion from reporting on that issue, and often from being a reporter at all.
So when a city had one print newspaper there was an effort to be or at least appear politically neutral, even if the ownership and certainly reporters and editors, were not.
With the proliferation of news outlets, which we saw with the advent of TV news, and then 24/7 "cable" news, and nowadays with most people under 40 getting their news from social media, there is an, stunningly for our supposedly enlightened age, intensification of bias through social bubble phenomena. People like to read, hear, watch what confirms their extant views -- and now they can solely do so.
Essentially a) the news business has evolved into a highly partisan product, with the objective data showing a heavy skew left compared to the rest of society. And b) the consumers have in large part become narrow confirmation bias hunters and consumers.
As far as even subject expertise, with the decline of "beats" as areas of expertise, and now almost solely about of having sources as opposed to expertise in the reporters themselves, with those sources having partisan interests the credibility of the news business has rightfully declined.
For example the guns, gun control, gun violence reporter on my local NPR station is the recipient of a large cash grant from a gun control organization (as are scores of "gun expert" reporters across the US through the same program). There stories are as a result highly biased and virtually always contain objective falsehoods as well. In fact since the taboo against revolving door and accepting outside money from directly involved adovacy groups has fallen
With attitudes on the 2A having become more and more partisan (and this is no longer the "thirds rail" but the most partisan, poltical party aligned issue, there is today, one can expect more and more ignorance and disinformation from the press on that subject
As far as my daily news consumption I read the WSJ and the FT. My local paper is owned by Jeff Bezos and staffed entirely by people from one side. I do listen to BBC and NPR on my commute. But I am careful to believe anything since when they cover a subject that you know, you cant help but notice these sober news sources are very often wrong or biased so you have to make that assumption on their coverage of subjects you don't know.
f course most of us over 40 tune to the 24/7 news channels when a major event occurs but are should avoid the "talking heads" since that is just a stable of poltical operatives and position advocates.
Again as far as I can tell most people under 40, and EVERYONE under 30, get virtually all of their news, as well as indoctrination on how to contextualize it, it from their twitter bubble, which is essentially a mob curation or ochlocratic news regime.
So when a city had one print newspaper there was an effort to be or at least appear politically neutral, even if the ownership and certainly reporters and editors, were not.
With the proliferation of news outlets, which we saw with the advent of TV news, and then 24/7 "cable" news, and nowadays with most people under 40 getting their news from social media, there is an, stunningly for our supposedly enlightened age, intensification of bias through social bubble phenomena. People like to read, hear, watch what confirms their extant views -- and now they can solely do so.
Essentially a) the news business has evolved into a highly partisan product, with the objective data showing a heavy skew left compared to the rest of society. And b) the consumers have in large part become narrow confirmation bias hunters and consumers.
As far as even subject expertise, with the decline of "beats" as areas of expertise, and now almost solely about of having sources as opposed to expertise in the reporters themselves, with those sources having partisan interests the credibility of the news business has rightfully declined.
For example the guns, gun control, gun violence reporter on my local NPR station is the recipient of a large cash grant from a gun control organization (as are scores of "gun expert" reporters across the US through the same program). There stories are as a result highly biased and virtually always contain objective falsehoods as well. In fact since the taboo against revolving door and accepting outside money from directly involved adovacy groups has fallen
With attitudes on the 2A having become more and more partisan (and this is no longer the "thirds rail" but the most partisan, poltical party aligned issue, there is today, one can expect more and more ignorance and disinformation from the press on that subject
As far as my daily news consumption I read the WSJ and the FT. My local paper is owned by Jeff Bezos and staffed entirely by people from one side. I do listen to BBC and NPR on my commute. But I am careful to believe anything since when they cover a subject that you know, you cant help but notice these sober news sources are very often wrong or biased so you have to make that assumption on their coverage of subjects you don't know.
f course most of us over 40 tune to the 24/7 news channels when a major event occurs but are should avoid the "talking heads" since that is just a stable of poltical operatives and position advocates.
Again as far as I can tell most people under 40, and EVERYONE under 30, get virtually all of their news, as well as indoctrination on how to contextualize it, it from their twitter bubble, which is essentially a mob curation or ochlocratic news regime.
Whenever credible evidence is presented that this election was rigged, we should all support investigating it. So far, nada. Just innuendo and conspiracy rumors.