Yeah, I'm still looking at the headline and I'm thinking "and why is that a bad thing?"
I mean, the problem mainstream commentary are really talking about is the accumulation of irrational, garbage world views. But mainstream is hampered in its ability to describe this in particular.
Essentially, the view of journalism, in America especially, has presented itself as a "non-world view", "just the facts" but really having a secular, pro-science, pro-capitalist, etc position. A variety of viewpoints could considered but not an infinite variety. And the endorse variety was the "unbiased", supposedly willing to considered anything. And it seemed plausible for a bit.
Moreover, this mainstream view certainly wanted some things to be taken fully on authority while other things could have their validity debated. Especially, schools and newspapers can't come out and say religious is bunk, they have to couch things as religion is a fine thing but shouldn't impinge on the domain of science or the state. And when talking a world view that is, in my secular world view, screamingly irrational, that's leaving a big hole in your position.
My personal biased view is that the rise of an educated populace in the 1960s lead to that populace questioning a lot and the elites then being happy to gut education. Which lead to a uneducated populace more ready to embrace idiocy. Researchers saying "maybe people should have tools to sort facts from trash" but how did the situation start anyway? Sure, the Internet accelerated this kindling but you had problems with the rationality of the citizenry beforehand.