Maybe it’s because I am now a cranky old man (You kids! Get off my lawn!!) but it seems to me that traditional media (broadcast and print) are in shameless symbiosis with the institutions they cover. You scratch my back with a story angle, I will give you access. This goes for politics, science, sports, business, whatever. It seems so shallow and selective, and it’s because those media live in fear due to their shrinking numbers. They have a lot to lose.
On the outside, where we can pursue our own interests and share what
we learn as we go, theories can be test driven, stats can be
crowd-sourced and analyses can be debated in virtually real time. The
Mostly Symbiotic Media can’t touch that. They are left with arguing from
I am waiting for one brave newspaper chain to attack the climate change cabal. The Intensely Political Climate Catastrophists of the IPCC use arguments and tactics that would get business leaders thrown in jail but which seem to get a free pass when used in the service of "saving" the planet.
One simple example: we hear about the corrupting influence of oil money as it applies to so-called "climate deniers" but where is the investigative reporter who shows how much money is sloshing around the alarmist community, and asking what the impact might be?
In another example, sports journalism in hockey is in danger of being left behind by advanced statistics regarding player performance in various on-ice situations. The stats guys (here is just one example) are outside the mainstream and their work is dismissed as irrelevant, yet the patterns that these analysts identify are relevant and persistent from season to season.