I think it's unavoidable. With social media, the incentives simply aren't there to have a media that gives a balanced view of the story anymore. That doesn't sell.

Before, it used to be that you'd present side A and side B, without taking any stance. Now, people are starting to conflate neutrality with centrism. Even a 'neutral' news outlet is expected to take some sort of stance, and not to platform extremists.

If you want for something to spread, it's better for 100 people to really like it than for 1000 people to find it OK. That's the pattern we're seeing in the media right now.

Mr. Smith has a quaint notion of journalism, and one which is not shared by his publisher, who indeed see it as a reasonable endeavour to 'combat Donald Trump'.

I think that the future of media is to completely abandon the pretense of neutrality and to become blind cheerleaders for 'their side'; if you want the Republican coverage, you'll go to Fox or OAN, and hear the latest theories about how the President is morally infallible and how the libtards ought to be rounded up and shot. If you want the Democratic coverage, you'll go to CNN or the NY Times, and hear the latest theories about how the President is an evil man and how the fascists ought to be rounded up and thrown in prison.

I don't think this will be too bad. Before, you'd trust your neutral newspaper to give you both sides of the story. Now, you'll have to read two news outlets. But this isn't the end of the world, as long as people can adapt to the change.