Don’t get me wrong, I am a free-speech absolutist. Against accusations of “fake news” and “white supremacy” and exposing groups like Antifa, I believe the answer to our problems begins with more news, more speech, and more coverage, not less.

But as with any system (capitalism, democracy, etc.), there are loopholes and there are costs associated with these systems when taken to their extremes. “Too much of a good thing.” No system is foolproof. The same exists with free speech. (Let the purists grab their pitchforks.)

All I’d like to do is ask the question: Is there too much?

When I was 19, I distinctly remember my well-researched, inquisitive friend saying, “if everyone would just shut up!” when he talked about his frustration in navigating politics and media. I was much less educated than he, but even I was in agreement that scaling the mountain of information involved in educating oneself keenly in current affairs is an insurmountable and overwhelming task in the age of continuous, innumerable media coverage. There’s simply too much going on to keep up, and the sheer amount of opinions and posturing is simply static over the air-waves.

In 2017, Americans reached an all-time low with regard to trusting the media. It’s possible this is due in part to Trump’s rhetoric, but it’s my opinion that all he did was act as a mouthpiece for Americans’ already-formed idea. The problem of distrust in mass media started long before Trump.

In the mid-1970s, by contrast, a great majority of Americans trusted the mainstream media, and it’s no wonder - this was on the heels of the Watergate scandal and the release of the Pentagon Papers. Journalists had shed light on the corruption of our government. News anchors were simply “informers” from the political center. This was also the time just before cable news when Americans had but only three major outlets for news: NBC, CBS, and ABC, or the “Big Three.” CBS’s Walter Cronkite was voted “Most Trusted Man in America.” Is there any journalist who can claim that title today? Not without much disagreement.

The problem of distrust may have started in 1980, with the start of cable news, the 24-hour news cycle, and the decline of newsprint. CNN was founded that year and shortly thereafter, Fox News. As soon as news stories were made a commodity, outlets became vested in creating news instead of merely reporting it. To stay competitive, outlets had to appeal to sensationalism and partisanship. When capitalism and free speech had a child (not necessarily as recently as cable news), the quality of the product suffered. Information is now next-to-worthless because of its prolific availability.

To stay informed, one used to turn on the nightly news for national coverage or read the morning paper for local issues. Maybe you’d tune in to AM radio for more information. Things were simpler and the discourse was civil (in the opinion of a commentator born in 1992).

More outlets and more opinions have led to the increasing polarization of tribes. An overwhelming number of voices of questionable trustworthiness have led many to simply say, ‘to hell with them all,’ and stay uninformed. Subsequently, news has become an addiction for many as it has morphed into a means of entertainment, like sports or reality TV. It's something the news shouldn’t be.

Were we better off with only three news outlets? Maybe. Has information overload led to increased ignorance? It looks like it. It seems as though more speech has become less helpful. It’s an issue that needs an honest examination.