[CM30]

This is actually a good point. For as much as people criticise echo chambers and fake news and what not, you have to ask yourself whether it was really any 'better' in the old days, or whether you simply didn't know otherwise.

Was it better when the government or the church decided what people were allowed to know?

When there was one media outlet in a certain medium, like in the UK when there was originally only one TV network in existence?

I mean, even the days when it was just newspapers didn't necessarily have an informed populace or people open to other views. It had people who read the same tabloid for decades and got stories that would likely make Breitbart jealous.

Fake news may be a hot topic nowadays, but at the end of the day, it's really just a byproduct of anyone being able to become a publisher, and it's probably better that's the case than that one or two organisations can dictate what's newsworthy and what isn't.

[orev]

Well, it really was better, for this reason: because you had limited options and limited control, you had to sit/listen/watch/read through segments and articles that you didn’t necessarily agree with, forcing you to be exposed to other ideas. Sure it wasn’t perfect, but there just simply was not an echo chamber like what exists today. Like any healthy diet, your news needs to include things you might not necessarily like, but you could wash them down with the other frivolous bits. Today you can just binge on candy all the time and like any kind of addict, people get really upset when you try to take it away.

Further, there was a pretty big stigma associated with buying tabloids, but today you can indulge without anyone having any idea what you’re looking at.