What, then, are some of the trends that have affected our systemic processes of news production and consumption in recent years, rendering them vulnerable to (charges of) "fake news"? For one, there has been a significant acceleration of the news cycle. People no longer get their news once a day, in an aggregated form -- either in the form of a bundled-up morning paper or as a late-night news bulletin on TV. Instead, news outlets now compete 24/7 for their viewers' attention. Second, media markets have fragmented, not least due to the emergence of cable television in the 1980s, the rise of private TV channels and the gradual decline of bipartisan support for public broadcasters such as the BBC.

"bipartisan" means: of or involving the agreement or cooperation of two political parties that usually oppose each other's policies.

But here that makes no sense that two opposing parties used to support BBC. Does it mean that BBC used to be supported by all political groups generally?

  • 1
    It means exactly what you said it means by providing the definition of the word: the support of public broadcasters such as the BBC by two parties that usually oppose each other's policies. Commented Apr 18, 2019 at 0:20

1 Answer 1


To directly answer that last question of yours: yes. The important distinction here is between private TV channels and public broadcasters. In their usage here, when referring to a business of some sort, there is an implicit meaning of new TV channels being publicly or privately funded. So, the phrase "gradual decline of bipartisan support" refers to elected officials of one party, over time, becoming disproportionately less in favor of funding public broadcasters like the BBC.

As to the veracity of the claim or explanation for the phenomenon, you could post your question to another Stack Exchange site, perhaps Politics or History :)

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .