[lordnacho]

> Or are there other reasons for “why now”?

Now because it's only been a short time since people could decide anything. Or at least were told that they could. How long since real parliamentary democracy, where say half of people who can currently vote were allowed to do so?

And in that time, the major outlets were few and gated by a journalistic system where you had to at least say something sensible and be judged by what some might call an elite, but others would call educated common sense.

Recently that status quo has fallen apart, and it's become clear that you don't need to have a message that is in any way cognizant of history, science, or any other established facts. The crazies at Speaker's Corner are now able to broadcast with a similar reach as people who've actually considered what to say.

Technology does indeed have a lot to do with this state of affairs, and is also alluded to in the article. That one nutter who says the world is flat online now causes others with the same inclinations to gain in confidence. Likewise with any number of ideas that would have quietly died.

[rzmnzm]

I don't agree. 'Yellow journalism' has been around for almost 150 years. The major differentiator was who had the money to print, and an audience to read.

It would be nice to think that a news organisation's respectability would translate into a greater audience, but you only have to look at the Sun, Fox, et all to see that is not the case.

An interesting story is more appealing than one that is not, even if it is not true. And the cost of reporting false information is a small retraction printed weeks later on page 10.

The decline of news media profitability has led to the state of journalism today, which mainly consists of twitter gossip mongers, producing content not much better than the crazies at speakers corner (and often worse).