[djoldman]

This is an interesting take. Are the total bytes of text, pictures, and video produced by the news media some significant fraction of the total bytes output by humanity? I'm not sure but also I'm not sure why it matters.

I wonder why people seem to be surprised/upset/perturbed at news media polarization. Humans read the news for fun/excitement/engagement/etc. The vast majority don't have to read the news, they choose to. They choose to read the news over engaging in some other activity that might be more fun/etc. Therefore the news competes with all other fun things to do. Opinion and polarization are more fun and exciting and outrage-inducing than dry, unbiased, fact-based reporting - so you see more and more of the former and less and less of the latter.

This is because of how humans are. This isn't because there are mean content producers. The content that wins is a reflection of humanity. Generally we like to consume content that invokes emotion; facts are boring.

As an aside, I watch (with what I wish wasn't a touch of schadenfreude) as people get upset at the decline of the newspaper industry. I guess it turns out that humans don't really care about journalistic ethics - they just want a hit of dopamine. The noble-ness of journalism IS noble and to be lauded, because it prescribes a standard that goes against the grain of the typical media consumer.

[sjy]

The news media is called the “fourth estate” for a reason. Many people believe it is a foundational element of democracy. I am one of them and I am “upset/perturbed” at the news media’s decline. You seem to accept that it is in decline but say that’s just “a reflection of humanity.” Isn’t that something to be upset about? If the media can become more polarised and less factual, couldn’t it also move in the other direction? Can’t we be upset that this is not happening, and propose political solutions, in the same way that we reform other political institutions?