[apatters]

Are you opposed to having intermediaries period, or the particular set of intermediaries that command the largest audiences today? The distinction is important because intermediaries can add valuable context and analysis (we just happen to have a lot of low quality ones imo).

[philwelch]

I'm not opposed to having intermediaries. I'm opposed to having a media environment where only particular established and "trusted" intermediaries are capable of disseminating information to the public. While imperfect, I consider it, on net, to be a very good and healthy aspect of our society today that no one holds the kind of institutional power over public information once held by, for example, Walter Cronkite and his employers. Not because Cronkite and CBS were particularly untrustworthy, but because that degree of centralized power posed a tremendous risk.

Not only do I not trust corporate media institutions with that kind of power generally, I am even more distrustful of corporate media institutions that push the narrative that they should have that kind of power. Not just because it's good practice never to give power to someone who obviously wants it that badly, but because the way in which they are campaigning it is itself tendentious and, at times, dishonest--which only makes them even more obviously untrustworthy.

Oddly enough, the heyday of the American newspaper and "yellow journalism" seems to be not too far off from today's era. Hearst and Pulitzer would barely miss a beat in today's clickbait environment. We survived that era because Americans learned not to believe everything they read. It's a shame that the media oligopolies of the 20th century gave them the opportunity to forget.