I'll respectfully disagree. Financial incentives influence everyone, including the editors at top publications who are constantly looking at what is read, watch

I'll respectfully disagree. Financial incentives influence everyone, including the editors at top publications who are constantly looking at what is read, watched, and shared to decide what to invest in and feature. You might really like "All the News That's Fit to Sell" which is written by a media economist that digs into how market incentives influence coverage (he's the director of the journalism program at Stanford). There's lots of discussion as well about media coverage decisions in the lead up to the 2016 presidential election at even the national networks. This Cecil the Lion example at the Washington Post has always been illuminating to me: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/17/business/where-clicks-reign-audience-is-king.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/17/business/where-clicks-rei... Even at the top publications, financial incentives influence choices. It's not as malevolent as someone paying off a journalist. For example, at most top tier newspapers, there is an incentive for "if it bleeds, it leads". This is an economic outcome, as this elicits the most reader interest and also increases profitability. (See my data analysis on this in the NY Times: https://www.nemil.com/s/part3-horror-films.html https://www.nemil.com/s/part3-horror-films.html )