Well said.
Quite so. I wasn't arguing for control of the media. Though commercial extinction in favor of more reliable sources would be a quite satisfactory outcome.
I think our decade is not the first to realize that the fourth estate isn't always an angel of truth. We had Yellow Journalism at the end of the 19th century, for example.
Yes, Americans have been through this before, haven't we?
I've no doubt it was the internet and talk radio that pulled us through the horrific danger presented by the MSM coupled to CFR.
What was it that made an end run around Yellow Journalism possible, though? I can vaguely recall some paragraphs in a history book that suggested financial over-extension coupled with aggressive competition turned the tide. Capitalism itself is a necessary complement to freedom, it would seem.
I've postulated that, ten years from now, the media landscape won't resemble today's. There will be no such thing as the CBS Evening News, for example. News magazines will be increasingly irrelevant. The major players will be cable TV, radio and the internet. Precise roles will be "to be determined" as new forms appear...and either survive or are discarded. The environment will be very fluid -- but the line between "news" and "commentary" is probably going to be firm and highly visible (as a natural reaction to today's abuses).
"Under the circumstances you describe", my wife has asked, "what happens to the J-Schools and their recent graduates?"
Personally, I doubt that a single J-School is preparing its graduates for such a radically altered environment. Certainly, nobody is intent on turning out the next generation of Matt Drudges. Nor do they have much of a focus on research, investigative reporting, or knowledge of a subject.
As we've seen here on FR, a reporter who doesn't do research and has no effective knowledge of their subject is instantly exposed. The internet simply won't allow for that kind of journalism anymore.
And that is, indeed, "a good thing."
Well said.