Finally, trust in news media cannot be compared longitudinally without a lot of statistical controls and contextualization. To compare 1972 with one population of respondents to 2018 with another population of respondents is a classic example of both a “history effect” and a “maturation error” any responsible academic (or any of my former GW students). In short, stuff happened along the way from 1972 to the present that cannot be controlled for so as to permit a valid apples to apples comparison. And the population has changed over time, too, meaning that the sampling has a different characteristic and a different potential set of errors/problems. Longitudinal trust studies about journalism are completely useless; regular media trust studies can turn trust in media into a horse race rather than an ontological and empirical problem that merits careful and nuanced consideration.
Maybe the gutting of the news industry has been so broad that those who are left behind are either those who have benefitted from the expansion of new technologies—the nimble, the young, the lifelong learners—or those who have been isolated from its worst excesses—the newscasters or radio personalities who have moved away from the perils of newsprint, or moved into one of the diminishing number of managerial jobs. Maybe they’re suffering a kind of imbalance because they’re on the right side of the line (for now.)
…will still be video games. Most of the squishy stuff in the middle, though, will go conversational. Anything that involves collaboration, communications, consumption, organization, etc. will probably become a bot. I think bots will replace 80% of what we use at work and half of what we use at home. That’s a lot of stuff to rewrite!