Andreessen Tweeted his opinion, which is why it reads as it does:
Something I believe that nobody I know believes: Woodward & Bernstein Watergate coverage precipitated 40yr collapse of trust in print news.
That long slow slide of trust can be seen, among other places, in Gallup polls over the years: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-professions.aspx#4 …
After Nixon resigned 40 years ago this weekend, Washington Post Watergate coverage became exemplar for entire next generation reporters.
Political press became obsessed with unearthing scandal, which metastasized throughout print journalism. Gunning for Pulitzer bait.
Particularly when applied indiscriminately across news landscape, and particularly when extrinsic press motivations are so clear.
Irony is we now know Woodward&Bernstein less reported Watergate than had story fed to them by Mark Felt, partisan in internal FBI battle.
I think the 40 year echo effects of Watergate have more to do with the existential crisis of newspapers than anyone would ever admit.
As news consumers, endless barrage of scandal, tragedy, and conflict has real psychological effects. Makes world seem worse than it is.
Of course, the media has basically always made the “world seem worse than it is,” except during wars, when the media has made, for instance, American military efforts from World War II to Vietnam seem better than they actually were, because of military censorship.
The contrary views in the comments are as much name-calling as counteranalysis (with capitalization errors to boot):