I think this is an ideal we are heading towards in comparison to ~1970 but we are far from there yet. There are a hundred TV channels where before there was less than 10. There are more newsfeeds, movies, tv, books, music than ever before, and we can get the impression that our choices in which part of the culture we engage with places us in our own chosen bubble.
When surfing around, it becomes clear there are several narratives (or competing narratives on some topics) that are present throughout our culture. The truth is that most of the media consumed is either owned by one of a few corporations, or is heavily inspired by their work. Now we are dealing with a many head hydra.
I think you and the user you're replying to are both right. To expand upon that, for most of the 1900s, there was a dominant culture (as you pointed out, fewer than 10 channels). For there to be a "counter" culture, there must be a dominant culture.
I would posit that in the current time, we have a wide variety of well established subcultures whereas for most of the 1900s we didn't. Today our subcultures can exist easily due to mass media, whereas for most of the 1900s they couldn't - the subcultures were more "underground" - underground in the sense that you really needed to be part of a community in person to be part of the subculture. The "counter culture" was a push back on the smotheringness of the monoculture. Now that the monoculture is not so smothering and the subcultures can breath, there's less pushback - there's less "counter".
When surfing around, it becomes clear there are several narratives (or competing narratives on some topics) that are present throughout our culture. The truth is that most of the media consumed is either owned by one of a few corporations, or is heavily inspired by their work. Now we are dealing with a many head hydra.