It seems to me like the opposite is the case, there is much less centralization than there used to be. There does seem to be some emergent synchronization of opinions but that is not the same.
If you force Fox, CNBC, CNN to create an agency of news reporting where each one oversee the content created, in order to be as objective as possible, then I think the society in US would benefit
In Italy those newspapers do money by selling copies containing the premium content, which is like reports, opinion articles, more in depth opinion articles etc, which people is still interested in, but for news and facts then ANSA is the source of truth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Silv...
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/016344370936116...
But the scope of my reply was about "who owns the truth?" and yeah you need a place where people can go and check facts that are checked by peers of other point of view
I would tell you about my literature professor, he would walk around with multiple newspapers under his armpit and suggest that "If you want to try to get the truth you need to get the same fact from multiple point of view and try to get it in the middle"
I agree. Who has the truth? Government or media? Or neither?
What has become worse is the centralised control of information. Which then leads to those centralised sources complaining and publicising of the issue.
On the other side, you have governance structures that require the legacy media to support their messaging, as the govern the populace.
Both work hand in hand - one provides the message the other the megaphone. In the past 2 years, the government has bankrolled the largest campaign in history, and the media have been willing recipients.
Complaining about misinformation however, works for both parties - it provides a self-supporting justification their actions.
Truth and faithfully representing reality has very little to do with that "virtuous" circle between media and governance.