[OM] On the new news paradigm.

Also titled: On Bill Maher's notes on the news.
I've just watched and listened to Bill Maher's New Rules (from, I believe the earlier part of this month—March 2014) and I want to discuss something that has been going around: the hatred for the new paradigm of news: that people are only seeing what they want, and a second matter on the lack of journalists bringing down the level of news.
I'll put the latter one aside after saying this: that it's not immediately obvious that news has suffered wholly since the advent of the Internet. Sure it's hard for them to make money (On this subject of modern day changes, the matter of paying the original content owners is something everyone must address. I see a lot of—could it be what I farm?—content being provided by professors, who would appear to be somewhat cushioned from the same monetary constraints as those outside—I'm not sure if that isn't a problem) but it appears that some do, and that to see a drop off in "the news finding things that are worthy" requires a rosy view of the past.
Journalists too are subject to many influences. By being allowed access to higher levels of power, I would say that they are corrupted and won't out the hand that feeds them unless they see a real reason to. In other words the positive of having a steady stream of information—itself suspect on many levels—has to be outweighed by the chance of making it big with an outing story... How many real controversies were uncovered before as opposed to now? I haven't seen evidence that it has become worse. We now speak on subjects that the mainstream media won't touch, but plenty of bloggers will. In fact, I have more or less cut most of what is considered mainstream news from my list (more on how to read the news here).
But the only real way to judge this matter is to take a survey of what happened in the past, what was left covered or was uncovered by mainstream sources versus the results of modern day Internet sources (bloggers and the like). And my only consideration (not well thought through, I must admit) for change in this realm would be to separate news media from other conglomerates by law.

Regarding the former topic, the "echo chamber" for both sides: the Internet powers that be are exacerbating this by further enabling them. Readers will now get a news piece only because it's been algorithmically said to be what people like them clicked on (though this is already happening because people are actively seeking out the sites that agree with them, the veritable echo chamber). And so it goes.
The scare is that this will only further polarize an electorate that hardly understands one another and that doesn't care for the other view, and not having the other view only further makes it so that people never hear what both sides of the coin will look like. I'm not saying that both sides of the coin exist in all situations, but surely something can be agreed upon? In a democracy shouldn't a large proportion be at least listened to?
Perhaps we need to somehow let people know that it's all right to have fruitful discussions on the Internet and to allow people to speak an opposing view. It's not easy. And one wonders what to do with comments. There has been some controversy as to whether sites should cut them, as Popular Science did, for it does feel like it goes against the grain of our democratic ideals. But read this link. It makes a very powerful case. What does one do when you know comments influence, right or wrong, and people are willing to pay for that influence? (and I won't lie that no matter how inane comments are, I will read them over and over)
I might have more questions than answers here, but I will attempt to add more as information comes in.