What caused journalism to decrease so rapidly in quality through

Are you stupid? People were getting tons of newspapers until... you guessed it, the proliferation of the internet. That also caused a good deal of degradation in qualify (according to some).

Shitty journalism has been around forever. You ever heard of yellow journalism? It basically caused the spanish-american war and that was the 19th century. Obviously it still persists today but to pick an arbitrary date such as "the second half of the twentieth century" is stupid.

The decline in journalism as a discipline. For example, CNN doesn't even do investigative journalism anymore; rather, you can pay them to send a "reporter" who will report back whatever you tell them to.

An oligopoly also removes any trust in the media what so ever. Some NINE corporations dominate television. While bias is understandable, the clear collusion and the deleterious effects it has removes any trust people have. How do I know I'm being told the truth, or that I'm being presented with all opinions? I can't and I'm not.

And, of course, the internet, which did two things:

Firstly, it removes the need for secondary sources. In the past, it was next to impossible to present primary sources: Now, I can see them easily. Journalists play a three way role of commenter, extrapolater, and interpreter. Their role as someone who brings you news has been lessened.

Secondly, it distributes the role across a multitude of people. In the past, you got six opinions from nine media conglomerates, nothing else. Any issue was presented within a very narrow narrative and any stepping outside of this was shunned or simply ignored. Now, however, that's no longer the case and you can find people commenting on things from millions of viewpoints. A libertarian, a communist, a Fascist, a Nazi, a neocon, a scientist, and a hippy can all comment on the exact same event and bring their own ideas to the table.

File: USS Maine explosion.gif (104KB, 541x615px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 541x615px

>>2477676
>second half of the twentieth century
>implying

>>2477676
>Decrease of Quality?
Someone here hasn't heard of Yellow Journalism.

>>2477726
>A libertarian, a communist, a Fascist, a Nazi, a neocon, a scientist, and a hippy can all comment on the exact same event and bring their own ideas to the table.
Fancy words for "Confusion, screeching, and fighting in news comments section."

Journalism has always been shit profession for the worst human beings imaginable.

Just read some of the crap from the WW1 and WW2 era. The amount of jingoism, fear-mongering, and war romanticism was truly legendary.

There's no difference between early 20th century headlines like 'Germans are Evil Subhuman Raping Poor Belgium' and 2017 headlines like 'Trump is a Manchurian Candidate Puppet of Evil Overlord Putin Who Wants to Start Nuclear War'.

Just more proof that the internet is truly a blessing rather than a curse. For the first time, we get the first truly independent, non-corporate individuals spreading objective and unbiased information on a widespread and instantaneous digital platform.

Anyone who thinks that you need a $900,000 journalism degree to have the right to spread information is a cunt who should be publicly hung.

>>2477676
Information boom transformed "current news" from small regulated and controllable trickle into endless torrent of text, disaster photos, and screaming headlines.

Information stream has exploded in intensity, breadth and availability. Capacity of humans to consume and compile that information -- has not.

Ability to switch the channel or close the tab gave people the choice to ignore and pick and choose information they want.

With limited capacity to take information the window until regular human loses interest can be as low as several seconds to read headline and lower still.

Producers of information are forced to compete for that dwindling window of man's limited attention span and have no choice but to resort to what works -- appealing to lowest common denominator.

>>2478360
>For the first time, we get the first truly independent, non-corporate individuals spreading objective and unbiased information on a widespread and instantaneous digital platform.
No one reads AP or C-Span, they just source them for their own articles with their own spin.

>>2478360
>For the first time, we get the first truly independent, non-corporate individuals spreading objective and unbiased information on a widespread and instantaneous digital platform.
>there are people who believe this

>>2478360
>Just more proof that the internet is truly a blessing rather than a curse.
Yup, now we have people who believe shitty YT """"""documentaries"""""" rather than actual historians. People who don't read peer-reviewed journals but blogs with clear agenda. Truly a blessing.

It's because journalists believe they are more newsworthy than the person they are interviewing.

Go look at they types of people who do journalism degrees. It's almost exclusively leftists who ascribe to some for of relativism. If the journalists themselves don't believe in removing bias, is it any wonder why it's still there?

The idea of a neutral, unbiased form of journalism is fucking retarded and it never existed.

>>2478596
Hes talking about watching events recorded by bystanders not reading Journalists articles online.

>>2478607
I know someone who believe that space don't exist because of that kind of crap.

>>2477676

Clickbait shit became popular, so sensationalism was promoted.

Bias. People felt safer pushing blatant bias as news pieces rather than editorials.

Alternative news sources sprouted up. The quality obviously varies from garbage fire tier to great, but mainstream outlets became irrelevant.

The internet. With the internet we no longer needed news outlets as much. There are now people out there who have larger followings than the mainstream outlets (see Pewdiepie vs WSJ.) So the ability to go right to the source improved.

On top of the clickbait/fake news shit turning people off so much that it turned people away towards these alternative outlets. The desire to make a quick buck blew up in their faces.

>>2477689
intelligent post

>>2477726
good effort but not the whole picture post

>>2478360
Intelligent post that veers into insanity halfway through

>>2478571
Intelligent post

>>2478612
monumentally stupid post, honestly stunned

>>2478856
intelligent post

t. journalist

>>2478063
Came here to post this.

>>2477676
Because people saw it as a buisness and not a way of life, same reason why cancer is researched far more than antibiotics despite antibiotics being far more important to the overral health of society

File: IMG_8026.jpg (38KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x281px

>>2477676

>>2477676
People realized that they don't need to pay for news on Internet and they can read all the nonsense they want that will confirm their bias.

News also got consolidated by media conglomerates that can preach the message they want the masses to hear. All the newspapers in OP's pictures are owned by wealthy media barons. It is of no surprise that they will use it to push their own agenda

>>2477676
You are an idiot