"So we’re left with a giant that’s incapable of self-scrutiny, because that might lead to implosion, paired with a set of institutions that increasingly all reflect the same worldview and do so in very strange ways."

My question about this narrative which is a popular one is, when was this not the case? Yes, the writers at the NYT skew young, skew educated, skew urban. 'New Yorkish' as the article puts it, but is this news? The paper of record is dominated by urban, elitist, young, liberal writers. Just like it always has been. Just like it is in every other country on earth. I don't know of any major newspaper that is stuffed by 60 year old farmers and mechanics.

Big Media like Big anything recruits out of elite institutions, and that's what it looks like and what it talks about.

It's understandable that someone working in media frames the issue as if it originates in media and as if there has been a huge change in media, but I don't see it. To me noteworthy is the political shift in the US. Whereas the liberal elite formerly had presence in both parties, now there is a huge political rift, similar to the dynamic around universities, and that is what has created the attack on establishment newspapers or other civic institutions.

It's the polarisation of the political landscape that has created space for an attack on universities or media, or the arts. Demographically or in terms of attitude or quality very little has changed within those institutions.