There are far more news sources available today than in the 20th century. Not only can I read local newspapers and magazines from all over the world, which wasn’t easy to do before the internet, but also there are tons of new digital-only publications and millions of blogs.

In the 1990s in the US, before the internet took off, most people had access to one local paper (two in some cases), maybe an a few local magazines (include “alternative weekly” newspapers), a few local TV and radio stations, PBS and NPR, the 100 or so cable channels their local provider offered, the hundred or so magazines and newspapers the local Borders or Barnes & Noble sold, and whatever magazines and newspapers their library had in the periodicals section. And a lot of this media was owned by a few big corporations like Time Warner, News Corp, Condé Nast, etc.

> versus when you have just one, and that one actively works to prevent other options from emerging.

How has Facebook tried to prevent news outlets from emerging? They benefit hugely from news outlets, and kind of even depend on them for existence. They need the content for people to post and share. New publications like Vox probably owe some of their success to Facebook, and vice versa.

FB might have a lot of power to amplify traffic to certain publications (kind of like the big retail chains did in the 90s only more so), but that’s very different from actively preventing new news outlets from emerging.

There's both more and less news. Yes, I can now access all sorts of news worldwide which would have been difficult or inaccessible in the print era. But the newspapers in smaller markets are either disappearing or have greatly reduced capacity. It's much easier for me, in Kansas, to read about the current political struggles surrounding Brexit than it is about whatever my rural county is doing. There are rumors of corruption here. Certain decisions which are completely idiotic. But there's no one investigating. No newspaper or television willing to cover it in any detail. It's a black hole.

My situation isn't unique. This is the reality across much of the US. Not just the rural areas. There are many cities where cutbacks mean the local press doesn't cover the cops or the city council as much as they did in past decades.

There is a current federal legal complaint against Facebook with exacting detail about their anti-competitive practices, we don't need to speculate on this one. There are literally hundreds of numbered paragraphs each with a specific allegation of anti-competitive behavior.

In 1895, William Randolph Hearst's jingoistic yellow journalism pushed millions of Americans to support a pointless war with Spain.

Time Magazine influenced three generations of Americans.

For the last hundred or so years, every major city has had one primary newspaper, 2-3 local news broadcasters, maybe a local magazine.

Old line magazines and newspapers were information silos unto themselves.

> every major city had one primary newspaper

That’s more a last 30 years or so phenomenon. Before that most major cities had at least 2 primary newspapers (often split on party lines). Most large cities had many more than that.

How does that compare to the number of daily facebook posters, tweeters, tiktokers, bloggers, youtubers, internet tabloids, and other media sources accessible to a new yorker today?