Point is, it can amplify existing biases and people might not even be aware of it.
Somewhat, I'd say.
That's more so related to the ease of spreading political propaganda provided by the rise of the internet.
It's not exactly live and unfiltered though. The platform holders and search/recommendation algorithms decide what you get to see.
Sure, but geographic tags can and do show everything in a certain area, and with little to no filtration.
The personal feed is sorted out and filtered by these algorithms.
Now I do understand that all these biases exist.
But the key point of the argument is centered around the comparison between traditional and new media coverage.
The people had and will continue to have biases, and the technological advancement of the world will inevitably make the world far more connected and thus inevitably amplifying the effects of any propaganda or polarization in general.
As far as I view it, an unfiltered coverage showing the full picture without any interference or opinion attached to it can break or limit the capacity of these bubbles and propaganda.
The algorithms can be avoided by following geographic tags instead of just the personal feed, at least for anyone wanting to actually follow the news.
That's the theory I disproved above. Anyways, the digital space is centrally controlled and allows a degree of central control that has never been possible in human history.
The infrastructure is, but not the content.
It also allows reach, not direct control.
The capable entities (professional journalists) are made redundant by digital technology.
Capable entities as in political, economic, and social parties or movements, or just oligarchs.
For journalists, disagree; Professional reporters are redundant, which is the inevitable consequence of the world becoming more connected and essentially a small place.
Professional journalists, on the other hand, have the job of connecting the dots more so than finding them, and they're not becoming redundant but rather very important and increasingly hard to find.
With the competition from the free-lancers, traditional media are forced to cut costs by eliminating professional staff capable of research and unbiased reporting.
Traditional media has never been unbiased and independent.
Traditionally, the news has been reported by people working either for states, corporations or oligarchs directly, broadcasting or writing the bias of their employer into their material. This is simply because if they didn't hold the same bias, they wouldn't have been employed there to begin with.
Fox news isn't going to hire a communist for example.
New media, on the other hand, allows access to a far greater scope of information and coverage.
As pointed above to @Rugoz, the algorithms and the possible filtration by the given network might affect one's personal feed, but it can be overcome by opening geographic tags, which though requires an extra minute of effort, it's worth it to get the full picture.
They are replaced by amateurs who each pursues his own biased agenda in his own echo chamber.
Sure, those provide opinions and propaganda.
But again, those would exist either way, be it by an amateur or by a professional, propaganda is propaganda.
But the live coverage provided is different, simply because whoever is streaming can't control what's going on on the ground, so they can't push propaganda, they show what's happening live.