Why would old media publish articles that people don't want to read? No one would read "here are 10 youtube channels that are more in depth than a master program". They would go out of business in a quarter. It's not like old media doesn't publish a variety of content and then evaluate which gets the most views already. They know we don't want to sit through fifty hours of academic lectures instead of reality tv.

I also think it's funny to describe "old media reporting on new media as scaremongering" when scaremongering in the form of conspiracy theory and false expertise in new media (social media) is arguably its greatest flaw. What facebook et al have empowered in terms of fear and control is truly breathtaking. I don't think the insulated tech community of hacker news can truly appreciate how many people in the West have been led to fully distrust science and academia. How many reject medical science and climate science. How many have been manipulated into thinking collapse and violence are imminent and have engineered their entire lives around that belief, from moving to far away rural areas and stockpiling weapons and supplies. The breadth of the scaremongering and thoughtcontrol that social media enables is unparalleled in our history.

But sure, the problem is "old media".