The media as we know it has been falling for 20 years. They still control the narrative. The new media is nothing more than people spreading the same narrative they get from the old media. Again look at the UN report. All the new media was around then, and it didn’t change a damn thing. The new media is a waste of 3 characters, cause it’s still just the media.
I don't really see it that way, except for one thing: The 'old' media often presents important and useful information inadvertently...and people like those I mentioned are able to tease it out and present it, I am sure, to the anger and consternation of the 'old' media who were unaware they were giving out information that contradicts their viewpoints. It has the brilliant side effect of buttressing OUR point of view, when it is THEM providing the information. Sometimes they provide that information unknowingly, and sometimes they try to present it in such a way that they hope nobody picks up on it. But when Dan Bongino can support a conservative point of view with information gleaned from information released by The Washington Post or the NYT, it not only makes his point even stronger (Leftists can't just say "You got that from a right wing source!") but it also pokes their eye with their own finger and makes them angry...all good things for us.
You look at the 'new' media in people like Bongino, Ross, and Carlson (just to name three examples I used) it is true you can take them and plug them into roles played in traditional networks but that is as far as it goes, because they all act as interchangeable, nearly disconnected pieces, except for the fact that they are plumbing the depths of information and context of the same issue in somewhat the same time frame, and using each other's work to weave a larger narrative. People like Bongino, Rush, and Levin may provide the opinion part that the larger public can understand, but that is important, because information in a vacuum is completely worthless.
And that larger narrative is often far more valuable than anything those three people could put together independently. And those three people are not always the same like they would be at ABC or the NYT. Sometimes it is Dan Bongino and Jeff Carlson. Sometimes it is Rush Limbaugh and Chuck Ross. Sometimes it is Heather MacDonald and Mark Levin. And so on.
I view it as much the same dynamic that I see and appreciate here on FR, when a subject comes up, it is exposed to a lot of different people with different perspectives and different areas of expertise (or no area of expertise at all!) put their heads together and discuss issues.
If it is a military issue, you are sure to get people who have a better understanding of various aspects than the general public, and may actually have real experience.
Same with everything from financial to archaeology. Granted, there is a lot of blather mixed in, but that is the price to be paid for large scale un-disciplined approach to analyzing issues, but...the truth will generally out, or something closer to the real truth than anything we will get from that small group of "analysts" at CNN or NBC who have a specific agenda and viewpoint they wish to present to passive viewers.