> For him, information was in its right—that is to say, unquestioned—place. And that was good, too.
They're saying that the pre-Internet media felt reliable to the average American because they were blissfully ignorant. Which is to say they agree with you.
Personally, while I agree that there were issues with the media before, I do get the impression that the issues were fewer and farther between. It was usually the media going to bat for the establishment on issues of major policy (e.g., a war effort), and today it's the media going to bat for an ideological agenda (or rather 2-3 ideological agendas) for every single little thing that can possibly be framed along that particular ideological axis. Of course, there were publications that skewed liberal or conservative before (and someone will certainly respond to this with a short list of such examples before dropping the microphone triumphantly), but they hewed closely to the standards of journalism or else they were widely discredited.
> For him, information was in its right—that is to say, unquestioned—place. And that was good, too.
They're saying that the pre-Internet media felt reliable to the average American because they were blissfully ignorant. Which is to say they agree with you.
Personally, while I agree that there were issues with the media before, I do get the impression that the issues were fewer and farther between. It was usually the media going to bat for the establishment on issues of major policy (e.g., a war effort), and today it's the media going to bat for an ideological agenda (or rather 2-3 ideological agendas) for every single little thing that can possibly be framed along that particular ideological axis. Of course, there were publications that skewed liberal or conservative before (and someone will certainly respond to this with a short list of such examples before dropping the microphone triumphantly), but they hewed closely to the standards of journalism or else they were widely discredited.