[ChicagoBoy11]

Tyler Cowen has a book that addresses this, but I believe it is even less complicated than you make it sound: Ultimately, to justify the incredible production value, major outlets need to appeal to a wide audience to make the economics work, whereas random dude on YouTube needs to appeal to a LOYAL audience. In an age when switching costs to consumers is something trivial, big behemoths will only survive if they can continue to modestly appeal to a large enough base, and tiny players can only exist if they can find a niche to firmly segment themselves in. What you end up with is small producers with incredibly fringe productions and big, established, heavy players who take on less and less risk so they can appeal to a very broad base.

[uniqueid]

I agree with all of that, but I think it augments my point. It's still the case that indies have more incentive to bash mainstream media than to praise it. An Alex Jones can't easily compete with a major news outlet to report, say, the Burmese coup, but he can shout 'The MSM is lying to you! Myanmar is a Globalist plot!' and amass a viewership of millions. Once you have enough indies riffing off one another, reinforcing the narrative, you wind up where we are today.