Kdor še ni čisto padel v kevdrske sheme resničnega informiranja in ima še nekaj afinitete do elitizma "tradicionalnih medijev" aka tradicionalnih meril dobrega žurnalizma, naj si prebere krasen daljši komad v NYT. Poleg samega članka je vredno oko vreči tudi na vstavljene linke.

Branje članka najtopleje odsvetujem brajtbart twitom, fejsbukovim insajtovcem in jutjubiranim teoretikom zarot, ker bodo v njem našli isto kot jaz - svoja granitno trdna prepričanja o stanju sveta in smeri njegovega vrtenja. :-P

It has been a disorienting couple of decades, after all. It all began when The Drudge Report, Gawker and the blogs started telling you what stodgy old newspapers and television networks wouldn’t. Then social media brought floods of content pouring over the old barricades.
By 2015, the old gatekeepers had entered a kind of crisis of confidence, believing they couldn’t control the online news cycle any better than King Canute could control the tides. Television networks all but let Donald Trump take over as executive producer that summer and fall. In October 2016, Julian Assange and James Comey seemed to drive the news cycle more than the major news organizations. Many figures in old media and new bought into the idea that in the new world, readers would find the information they wanted to read — and therefore, decisions by editors and producers, about whether to cover something and how much attention to give it, didn’t mean much.
But the last two weeks have proved the opposite: that the old gatekeepers, like The Journal, can still control the agenda. It turns out there is a big difference between WikiLeaks and establishment media coverage of WikiLeaks, a difference between a Trump tweet and an article about it, even between an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal suggesting Joe Biden had done bad things, and a news article that didn’t reach that conclusion.
www.nytimes.com/2020...trump.html