The whole hysteria about 'fake news' 10 years ago was apparently an outrage against the public being duped, whereas is was in fact frustration that spreading fake news has been democratised.

From my POV the fake news hysteria was bound to trump's propaganda efforts and nothing else really.

But that's just a stupid central Europeans POV

But it absolutely wasn’t he was the most famous critic but everyone saw this who looked. Since most people didn’t dive too deep it was/is easy to post things with a spin and little real substance and people would take it is a fact because they really trusted the news outlets to not manipulate

Don't get me wrong, fake news is real. Obviously, always was. But the hysteria and the way "fake news" is used to this day to discredit everything someone doesn't like is definitely forever associated with trump (for me)

If "democratised" meant the same amount of power got spread out among the populace that wouldn't be a problem. But when disinfo becomes massively easier and we face floods from all directions, yeah that version of "democratised" sucks!

"Back in my day Walter Cronkite told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the Gulf of Tonkin incident"

(never mind the fact that he didn't even have the full truth available to him but you get the point)

that's a pretty big fact to just "never mind"

Reminds me of a meme - "We were never supposed to have this much access to stupid people's thoughts, beliefs and opinions."

Lunatics in bedrooms have been distributing pamphlets since the invention of the printing press.

Some historical context:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamphlet_war#History_of_the_pa...

> Throughout Europe in the 16th century, printed tracts were used to argue religious doctrine and foment support for religious causes. In England, Henry VIII used print literature to justify his break from the Catholic Church. During the subsequent reigns of Edward and Mary, print polemics escalated into propaganda warfare, as print media gained enormous potential to sway common opinion.

> Over the next century, the pamphlet became the principal means of garnering support for a cause or an idea, and was particularly influential during the English Civil Wars (1642-1651) and the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War

> Casualties: Parliamentarians 34,130 killed; Royalists 50,700 killed; 127,000 non-combat deaths (including some 40,000 civilians)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williamite_War_in_Ireland

> Casualties: Williamites: 10,000 killed or died of disease; Jacobites: 15,293 killed or died of disease

Arguably much of the mid-20th century was the pipeline from "lunatic with pamphlet" => "millions dead".

I'd have called the folks on Skellig Michael lunatics in bedrooms, too. They just had a harder time copying their lunacy out by hand.

They've been convincing women that its empowering to smoke cigarettes for a long time, too.

Their current reach is unprecedented though, and the reach of governments or political parties engaging in mass disinformation campaigns has proved almost an existential risk.

The current reach of everything is unprecedented. Mostly people are just watching shorts on their phone.

But this also means there’s more competition for attention, because now all lunatics can post from their bedrooms. The institutional media (including legacy) still maintain strong presence.

Of course, a great deal of panic over fake news wasn’t necessarily over fake news per se, but whose fake news and the loss of control over the “official narrative” that legacy media used to have a monopoly over. This isn’t a vindication of the heaps of slop published on the internet, just a more synoptic take IMO.

People miss Cronkite, because that style of media made them feel certain in their opinions and in “official consensus reality”, regardless of whether it was true or not and whether it was a trustworthy authority or not.