> The truth has always been fuzzy/slippery. There never was a golden age of unbiased nothing-but-the-correct-truth journalism. The only change now is it's a little more obvious.

And IMO that realization is a sort of "coming of age" that isn't in any way unique to modern generations.

When you become an adult and realize that the people running the show are just humans like you...

And that anyone selling you a simple "one right perspective" is only selling you part of the truth.

Or you realise that anyone selling you anything is merely wanting your money.

These days media organisations cause outrage for the sole purpose of getting you mad, only to read the article and realise the title is nonsense and you've just given them ad money.

I think you're wrong in a tiny but important point. It's not "All media organisations offer you senseless outrage and clickbait", it's "Some media organisations". There are plenty of meaningful, in-depth, well-written articles which provide new viewpoints on topics that it's important to talk about. You just have to find mediums. And I find it important to honor them instead of claiming "all media provides bullshit", which fuels a certain, toxic "truth is no where in media" atmosphere.

No disagreement here. The arc of my point is for those who look at 1984 and believe we're a long ways from there. On the contrary, we ARE there. The same ends, just different means.