[brokenkebab]

>When one outlet consistently publishes pieces that align with their perspective, the information content [...] starts to diminish.

Two problems with this statement. It's unlikely to be correct, and it's built on a "the grass used to be greener" assumption.

First, unless skewed data are still data. As a rather extreme example: Soviet dissident Bukovsky recalled that he made his opinion on what life looks like behind the iron curtain from Soviet propaganda by making adjustments, and extrapolations. And when he was allowed (actually forced) to emigrate he found it was not the whole pucture, but his guesses were mostly correct. As a former Soviet citizen myself I can say one can learn to read between the lines, even when available sources don't shy away from producing 100% fakes. Certainly, people who do not filter, and re-adjust consumed information will be misinformed. But then we are coming to the next point: was it any different before? Before (we are talking about USA, I suppose), there were less controversies, because there was just one mainstream (now various outlets need not to be mutually coherent), and media was more protected from outside criticism, but it doesn't mean it was all correctness, no bias, and no corruption. Political polarization probably makes people more sensitive for an opposite side's bias (but not to one's own side), and modern communications give more possibilities to challenge it. Maybe that's why it feels like it appeared recently.