The only way to stand out in this miasma has been appeals to identity and power.

Free speech does not guarantee truth or virtue; it simply allows for the confrontation of persuasive communication.

For several decades, the American mainstream press endeavored to satisfy the political demand of neutrality, sacrificing even objectivity itself to avoid labels of bias.

Traditionally, the mass media model had been based on advertising to reach demographic segments of a population. There was consumer behavior research, but it lacked precision. Media planners would buy “time” in broadcast formats or “space” in print. The shift to digital involved something altogether different: cheap exactitude based on

Television, like all media, unlocked new political rhetoric within the paradox. Some of this new openness was healthy from a democratic perspective, but much of it flooded politics with phony imagery. And that’s sort of the point: every new media technology is a double-edged sword, increasing opportunities for free expression but also providing a

The real question concerning news-print and mass-mediated technologies more generally, then, becomes whether the unruly, chaotic freedom of democratic discourse is preferable to monopolies of information managed by a select few.

Fisher’s point was that reason operates not on logic but story. What makes sense to us, more than anything, is narrative. In politics, this means citizens need to feel they are part of a story. Success is a function of politicians who can combine a telegenic ethos with a participatory campaign narrative. Television disrupted democracy with a bias

there are no epistemological guardrails, no limits to discourse.

The mainstream press became infatuated with coverage of close political contests and the political implications of news.