<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Media on Severin Bucher | Blog</title><link>https://severinbucher.com/tags/media/</link><description>Recent content in Media on Severin Bucher | Blog</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://severinbucher.com/tags/media/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>The Diminishing Quality of Content</title><link>https://severinbucher.com/posts/the-diminishing-quality-of-content/</link><pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://severinbucher.com/posts/the-diminishing-quality-of-content/</guid><description>&lt;p>I keep noticing that most of what I read online is worse than it used to be. There&amp;rsquo;s more of everything than ever, but it&amp;rsquo;s thinner: more articles that say nothing, more confident voices with no expertise behind them, more pages that exist to rank rather than to be read. I wanted to work out why, because I don&amp;rsquo;t think it comes down to one thing.&lt;/p>
&lt;h2 id="anyone-can-publish-now-and-that-changed-the-filters">Anyone can publish now, and that changed the filters&lt;/h2>
&lt;p>For most of the last century, getting something published was expensive and slow. A publisher, an editor, a fact-checker, and a typesetter all stood between a writer and an audience. Those people were a bottleneck, and they were also a filter. Plenty of good work never made it through, but most of what did had been checked by someone whose job was to check it.&lt;/p></description></item></channel></rss>