The Media is Under Attacks Partly Because There's Little Other (Remaining) Press to Speak in Its Defence
This Web site isn't political, but it's difficult to have escaped media coverage about how the White House openly blasted the media last week. They basically assert that anything being reported that's not flattering to the "powers that be" (whatever or whoever they may be) should simply not exist. Facts should not be reported.
Press emerged when messages were exchanged (via some form of parchment or "paper") to inform peers. Over a decade ago RMS covered it in some talks in relation to the origins and purpose of copyright law.
In some countries, even some historically well-off EU members like Hungary, the media has long been under siege. It came to the point where many people or establishments weren't permitted to speak and popular consensus was formed around whatever the "power centres" told. Here in the UK, Royals (or The Crown) used the court system to protect their supposed dignity and discourage dissent. In the US, the assaults on the media are clear and very persistent. It's getting worse each year.
The biggest danger here is that when there's very little press or no "opposition media" left it becomes even easier to crush critics because there aren't many people left to speak about the matter. For US democracy to prevail, the media is critical, however any "critical mass" in the media seems to have been eroded a lot for over a decade (Obama too contributed to that*, it didn't start with Trump).
Thankfully in the UK (based on my intuition and experience with institutions) people still assess the media and value media based on the merits of what it says and shows. As for the perils of SLAPPs, we'll spend the next few years focusing on the matter and campaigning for a much-needed reform. █
____
* Revisit James Risen's "If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama" or articles about that.