I think it's nostalgia for an age that never existed, multiplied by a US-based demagogue's campaign against facts.

Journalism has always been deeply flawed and massively biased, yet still useful. The people of the past knew that. You're not smarter than your great grandparents on that front. Tech wasn't some cure-all that opened your eyes but not theirs.

People knew these things.

In my opinion journalism has been destroyed by tech - the tech that drives journalists to optimize for selling online ads. The problem with what's written is not fundamentally political, nor is it the same old same old; it's the fallout of paperclip maximization.

Writing things that leave a false impression, use any and all techniques to inflame, and so on, are becoming the norm due to a runaway optimization process which is massively reshaping society in my lifetime.

Go read some old newspapers. It's clear you haven't.

What do you consider "old"?

100 years or more would be a reasonable start if we're going to have perspective.

No it’s not just nostalgia. The journalism business has totally changed. They once were funded by selling ads and now that business model is failing so they have been pivoting. They have to compete with the free content of blogs, Twitteratti, etc. Totally different now. We used to have serious journalists, they have vanished along with the demand.

So what are suggesting be done?

The “payload “ of this article might be the line that attributes the so called crash to a trade war that damaged free trade. Some partisans consider free trade to be sacred, others, evil.

Disclosure: I lean more towards “free trade is evil”, at least if you are labor, rather than capital. Michael Bloomberg might see it differently.

Edit: and I didn’t go into the article looking for a fight - I wanted to see news affecting an industry I work in, and the trade line jumped out. It’s probably even true, but it’s not hard to to imagine ulterior motives for mentioning it.