The demolition of the fourth estate will be worth it.
The fact that the MSM at one point rose to such power it could actualy consider itself an "estate" is rather bothersome to me. Especialy from the timeframe of post-WWII to 199X where there were three dominant broadcast networks, and generaly one (or at least one dominant) newspaper per large city, AND that they were almost all left-of-center.
In the 19th and 20th century, before the fourth estate was so powerful, people "made up their own minds", but those opinions were constrained by parochialisim because the majority of the American populace was rural or lived in small towns. Only those who were either well educated, or well traveled were exposed to a broader base of ideas. New thought could be imported by returing travelers (merchant sailiors, returning from war, expansion of rail travel etc.) but the local culture kept those ideas in check.
With the advent of electronic media and as the "fourth estate" solidified with the three major networks (+CNN starting in the 80's, but touting the same political slant), and with the top 50 major market newspapers, everyone was plugged in like never before, but because of the near-monolithic political bias of the MSM, everyone was being exposed to the same news, largely slanted the same way. As more people became educated, and as the population shifted to the cities, people who would have broken the bonds of parochialisim were now being fed a uniform stream of information. This wasn't such a problem at first, as one could argue that there was a core of "shared beliefs" about America between the Left and the Right, up until the 1960's. While the press has always had a hand in shaping public debate, it was during and immediately after the Vietnam war, that the MSM began to see itself as more than just reporting the news, and shifted to advocacy. However, this was also when the Left and the Right began to diverge, and the hometown "Mom, Baseball, and Apple Pie" core of shared beliefs started to come into question.
What was problematic is that this shift to advocacy was never formaly announced and it was done couched in the guise of ubiased "reporting". Blatant opinion was kept to the editorial page, however, all news was still politicaly edited, but by choosing what to report, more importantly what not to report, and by careful use of semantics. This is not to say it was deliberate at all times, or even the majority of the time, however the result was the same, the political Left knew it, and enjoyed unparalleled support from the MSM for over 30 years.
That is ending. We all know why. Internet/Bloggers, Talk-radio, FOX News etc. etc. etc.
Now a new era of "global parocialisim" is beginning. Where people truly can make up their own minds. They are exposed to almost all political thought and opinion on earth should they wish to see, hear, or read it, but there is no dominant voice. The net result is that people are finding "small town" groups of people who share their beliefs. (Like THR&)
