I don't think there are today more "morons" than 100 or 1000 years ago. With TV, magazines and lately the internet they just surface more.
100 years ago you only knew the three "morons" in in your small town.
On top of that cultural pressure goes down and people do things - being "morons" - today they we're afraid to do 50 years ago.
I'd make a secondary argument as well, I think we're experiencing a decline in traditional romanticism. A lot of the arts whether they be artistic or literary were historically supported via patronage. That hasn't changed... much... in the general sense. HOWEVER! The patron has changed! Instead of a few, or a singular, uber patrons content is now funded via a large audience of patrons who are in some way monetized. Art is still art, but the patron is no longer the aristocracy, the intelligencia, or any other group with high social prestige. We know that our shows, comics, and books are funded first by large souless corporations that then get a return on their investment from the consumer. It's not antithetical to art in my opinion, BUT, it does mean that any of the value that we would give things in the past is now gone. Because we're no longer enjoying the subject matter of people greater than ourselves, we're enjoying content that was put together with all the finesse of a hotdog for mass consumption. And when we're not, we're enjoying content we know was specifically tailored to our interests and that's why it costs more or is rarer.
None of that is inherently bad as I already said. In my opinion it's actually pretty good. But I do think that it's also why things seem less prestine than a lot of the 'old masterpieces'. It's true that some masterpieces are admired because of the effect they had on their field within their time periods. But I'd argue some of that glamor is also because that content was created for 'people who are better than regular people' within that same time period. And so now we're left with material that nuanced in it's own right, but devoid of that suspension of disbelief that we're witnessing something larger than ourselves.
I wouldn't call them morons, to me that depicts an inability to learn. I would say today there are far more people (as a percentage) that are incapable of critical thought and reading between the lines than there were 100 years ago, at least in the US. Many people are also much less educated than when the only entertainment was reading books.
Example: Years ago, when Obama was bailing out the banks, GOP talking heads skewered him. They wanted the banks to fail and rebuild. A few years later, when Occupy Wall Street formed, who were also against the bank bailouts, the GOP talking heads skewered them, even though they had similar political positions about the banks that the same talking heads where talking about just a few years earlier. How many people caught on to that? Lack of critical thinking.
Honestly, none of them, but you have to digest news somewhere, don't you? You have to be an informed citizen as part of your civic duty, don't you? Reading is typically better than watching or listening. Read multiple sources form multiple points of view and have your BS detector fine tuned. It's also better to get news from other countries, they don't have as much skin in the game. Constantly ask, "do I really care?" "Why do I care" "Is this really important, or are they trying to sway me to care?" "Why do they want me to care?" Also, if you do care, read the entire article, because relevant facts are often buried at the bottom under the top which is sensationalism / clickbait.
Furthermore, care more about stuff that directly affects you and your family. Jobs is certainly a big one. I care that companies are constantly pushing down wages more than I care about other things, because it directly affects me. Just an example. I care that companies are polluting the river my family visits. I care that the educational system in our state is horrible, I care that health care is fucking expensive.
Also, never read opinion columns, the same is true for TV. The old 6'oclock news is decent because they only have 30 minutes, but all the auxiliary shows and the 24 hour news are nothing but opinion. Unfortunately decent sources like the NYT is half opinion, but at least they label it as such.
This, with the addition that populations tend to demonize whatever is new. Then it was TV, then it was cable TV (MTV is evil!). Rock music, the internet, smartphones and tablets.
But in the past, they thought reading would ruin a generation and ruin their memories (it did kill a tradition, but we really just remember different things). Chess was certainly going to dumb down a generation, and folks were seriously suspicious of the automated elevator.
Amish and Mennonite communities to a point. Places with poor electricity outside the US.
And we have some records of times before television. In fact, there are still folks alive who remember such things. Heck, I remember times before the internet. My parents didn't have cable at one point. My grandmother remembers not having television in her house as they couldn't afford it. Their parents lived without radio. Their parents wrote down their experiences.
It isn't true that we don't have such a world, it just happened before now. Maybe we won't know who is right, but no one is actually willing to give up what they have and it is rather likely that it will fall into the same doomsday predictions about the new-fangled thing as all the previous one.
Well it's much easier for "morons" to survive till adulthood or even terminal age today than it was 1000 years ago for sure.
100 is debatable but still I wouldn't say that it's not possible.
On top of that cultural pressure goes down and people do things - being "morons" - today they we're afraid to do 50 years ago.