30 years ago in the US, there were a handful of major TV news outlets, and most people got their news from one of those and/or a newspaper, of which there were also a limited number.

The thing about those sources is that for the most part, it wasn't really economically viable to alienate half the population by leaning hard right or left. Any reduction in audience would likely translate to a commensurate reduction in advertising revenue.

Today, there are many, many sources of 'news' available in various forms around the internet, and of course people are free to choose what to pay attention to. This means it's entirely feasible for each source to cater to a particular viewpoint, even at the expense of definitely alienating half or more of the theoretical potential audience.

I theorize that the reason for this is that people have voted with their feet, balanced sources aren't as profitable and that's why there are fewer of them. It makes sense, a more balanced take on events is by definition not nearly as sensational, and almost always requires more mental effort on the part of the listener.

That by itself would probably be enough to explain the current situation, but on top of that, we also have the fact that many people receive the above mentioned information via algorithms designed to feed them more of what they already like (i.e. agree with) and nothing else, which of course only amplifies the effect further.

I have no idea how we get out of this situation (or if in fact we will), but in my mind it's not surprising at all.

▲

panopticon 4 days ago | parent [-]

The cracks in the media were already visible 30 years ago. Conservative talk radio was taking off, people were beginning to call CNN "Clinton News Network", and Fox News was right around the corner. There was clearly an appetite—and a market—for partisan news. This was further fueled by the growth of national radio and TV networks that were less beholden to capturing local audiences.

I think the internet just supercharged a change that was already well underway.

▲

tstrimple 4 days ago | parent [-]

Agreed. And Democrats were fucking stupid and decided to just ignore all of the systems Republicans were putting into place over decades. There are multiple conservative think tanks who approve supreme court nominations and spearhead Republican policy. They have been working on it for decades. It's unfortunate that the only political party in this country which can look to the future an make long term plans is the one most likely to follow the Nazi party into the history books.

	▲	Nevermark 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Unfortunately, the policies you get from any party that is disciplined over decades in putting long term power plays ahead of good governance is ... more long term power plays. I usually can think of at least a few plausible/possible solutions to most problems. But I am not at all sure what the Democrat's right response should have been. However, a severe lack of legal tolerance for businesses that use technology to super-scale poisonous conflicts of interest, like surveillance backed ads and media feeds algorithmically manipulated for addiction/attention behavior would have been part of it. Zuck should have been put away for life a few accidental genocides ago. (IMHO)