"the press" does not mean all news organizations and does not mean news organizations of a particular type.

It's interesting to see people talk about the necessity of the press as it currently exists to the continuing success of the nation as a whole. While I agree that a free press is needed, I'm not certain it has to be this model.

Further, it seems to me that the press that you and others believe we cannot function without is really a method for disseminating a centralized ideology and set of beliefs that, true or not, allow the majority of the country to continue in a unified direction. I don't believe that is necessary for the nation to continue, but I could be wrong there.

I don't think our current media is the correct model - it is much worse than in year's past.

> Further, it seems to me that the press that you and others believe we cannot function without is really a method for disseminating a centralized ideology and set of beliefs that, true or not, allow the majority of the country to continue in a unified direction. I don't believe that is necessary for the nation to continue, but I could be wrong there.

Historically there are two sources of tyranny - authoritarian rule, and the rule of the mob. I am specifically against centralization as I already said - this would lead to tyranny of authority in most cases. The other is the mob - as we've seen from doxxing witchhunts online, cancel culture, etc. This is simply tyranny represented differently. The idea that social media can replace journalism has been markedly disproved since the rise of social media.

Function is the wrong term - I'm sure something will function, like a broken clock functions - it still runs, but does it tell the right time?

> a "panel" of "experts" discuss how "issue x will destroy america."

My friend who worked in news regarded this as the first incarnation of "fake news".

Old newspapers? Like segregation era? Super objective times.

Or, more charitably, the 90s?

This is one journalist using 1996 is example of biased reporting https://twitter.com/RottenInDenmark/status/12808621032978759...

Biased reporting has always existed - again, no one is claiming utopia without bias. The idea is to have enough trustworthy sources for different points of view, arguing in good faith, for certain positions.

Now biased reporting comes from a few sources - the polarization is evidence of this.

The funny thing is that newspapers often started that way in the US. The reason you would often see the <Town/City Name> Democratic/Republician Gazzette newspapers? Because the ones who could afford to publish small town news were political parties. They did wear their motives explicitly and the eras were hella corrupt but it has precedent.

But my example was precisely about lack of differing opinions. The issue there was consensus in media, that made it look like there is clear agreement of experts about something where it was not the case.

An anecdote is not evidence of anything.

The claim "it was objectively more objective" is not evidence either.

There are periods of more objectivity and less objectivity - not all times in the past were objective, and some were more so. No one has claimed above - a most convenient strawman.

1980s