It's not hard. If you are getting your information from outlets whose existence depends on corporate sponsorship, then your 'news' is nothing but paid promotion for those advertisers. No matter how newsy they make it sound nor how monotone the presenter is, that information was specifically crafted to be presented in that specific way specifically for the benefit of the advertisers and their business objectives.
Now I know what you're thinking "these are legit news outlets. They just want to inform us. They still recognize journalistic integrity.". Nope. That gimmick is also part of the same plan. They can't be overt about their shilling. But in the end they are themselves for-profit corporations, not volunteer truth devotees. They just need to build this credible-seeming construct to anchor all this to. So they have to say all the right things and give the appearance of a legitimate news organization "built on journalistic integrity". So that when they present you with stories that subtly steer you towards their advertisers' products and services you don't know any better. But ask yourself, if a billion events are happening worldwide every second, what is the criteria for what stories make the news every day and why do they always cover such a narrow field, often hammering the same points hourly for weeks at a time? If you haven't picked up on this glaring thing, what enlightenment do you think you're going to get from consuming news anyway? So if you are reading corporate sponsored news (a complete oxymoron) of any type, you are probably too dumb to even be reading. And they are probably completely controlling your mind and your wallet. For profit, not for truth.
"... if a billion events are happening worldwide every second, what is the criteria for what stories make the news every day and why do they always cover such a narrow field, often hammering the same points hourly for weeks at a time? "
Simplest answer?
Resources.
Since 2008, newspapers lost 26% of their newsroom staff, including reporters, editors, photographers, videographers and other roles, split across a dozen or so Census categories, and as gathered by Pew up to 2020.
By 2032, at least another 26%?
Most of them from newspapers, which make up two thirds of all journalism jobs, vanishing four times faster than digitally native news outlets replace them. Long story short, you're seeing the dying staggers of the trade. Worst case scenario, mainstream newsrooms have all but disappered by 2040; 2050 latest.
Yes, lots to be concerned about in terms of editorial independence and freedom of the press. But to suggest that the entire Fourth Estate has no ethics, merit or impact, all of the time, goes too far.
Journalists fight ferociously for their stories, and newsroom meltdowns are legendary. It is not free of influence - Eisenhower warned us about that in 1957. But there is still plenty exposed by thousands of journalists, worldwide.
Solutions require massive reinvestment in newsrooms.
Being rich doesn't necessarily equate to being smart. All I have to do is not watch the TV or cable news or regular TV at all, not go on social media and not read books and magazines filled with leftist garbage. And I do all of those and see, my mind is much freer than 90% of the public's. The only way to exist is to be an independent thinker and that means the left hates me...cool!
Michael Bloomberg has also donated 3.3 billion dollars (yes billion) to The Johns Hopkins Univ and the School of Health there bears his name.
It's not hard. If you are getting your information from outlets whose existence depends on corporate sponsorship, then your 'news' is nothing but paid promotion for those advertisers. No matter how newsy they make it sound nor how monotone the presenter is, that information was specifically crafted to be presented in that specific way specifically for the benefit of the advertisers and their business objectives.
Now I know what you're thinking "these are legit news outlets. They just want to inform us. They still recognize journalistic integrity.". Nope. That gimmick is also part of the same plan. They can't be overt about their shilling. But in the end they are themselves for-profit corporations, not volunteer truth devotees. They just need to build this credible-seeming construct to anchor all this to. So they have to say all the right things and give the appearance of a legitimate news organization "built on journalistic integrity". So that when they present you with stories that subtly steer you towards their advertisers' products and services you don't know any better. But ask yourself, if a billion events are happening worldwide every second, what is the criteria for what stories make the news every day and why do they always cover such a narrow field, often hammering the same points hourly for weeks at a time? If you haven't picked up on this glaring thing, what enlightenment do you think you're going to get from consuming news anyway? So if you are reading corporate sponsored news (a complete oxymoron) of any type, you are probably too dumb to even be reading. And they are probably completely controlling your mind and your wallet. For profit, not for truth.
"... if a billion events are happening worldwide every second, what is the criteria for what stories make the news every day and why do they always cover such a narrow field, often hammering the same points hourly for weeks at a time? "
Simplest answer?
Resources.
Since 2008, newspapers lost 26% of their newsroom staff, including reporters, editors, photographers, videographers and other roles, split across a dozen or so Census categories, and as gathered by Pew up to 2020.
By 2032, at least another 26%?
Most of them from newspapers, which make up two thirds of all journalism jobs, vanishing four times faster than digitally native news outlets replace them. Long story short, you're seeing the dying staggers of the trade. Worst case scenario, mainstream newsrooms have all but disappered by 2040; 2050 latest.
Yes, lots to be concerned about in terms of editorial independence and freedom of the press. But to suggest that the entire Fourth Estate has no ethics, merit or impact, all of the time, goes too far.
Journalists fight ferociously for their stories, and newsroom meltdowns are legendary. It is not free of influence - Eisenhower warned us about that in 1957. But there is still plenty exposed by thousands of journalists, worldwide.
Solutions require massive reinvestment in newsrooms.
Being rich doesn't necessarily equate to being smart. All I have to do is not watch the TV or cable news or regular TV at all, not go on social media and not read books and magazines filled with leftist garbage. And I do all of those and see, my mind is much freer than 90% of the public's. The only way to exist is to be an independent thinker and that means the left hates me...cool!