Content here is questionable. But related, what I believe does happen is that most media outlets employ not dissimilar techniques m. People can not keep up wi

Content here is questionable. But related, what I believe does happen is that most media outlets employ not dissimilar techniques m. People can not keep up with the pace of news. This means news sources can promote topics they want seen either by having them as "breaking", or emphasised on the front page. Simply given an enticing title. Many people skim the title and perhaps a short blurb. You can editorialised here even if the article is nearly irrelevant you can give a biased view. Who gets to decide the narrative? Well whoever you like. With balance being brought in vague terms "Smith says that this is an abuse of power and is unconstitutional, he likens it to slavery. Although some disagree" I see this pattern so common it's absurd. Has more data arrived that makes the situation less inflammatory? We'll fix the article but now you can bury it cause it's less interesting. Anyone who looks through the media's records as a "newspaper of record" sees an impeccably accurate and unbiased document. Anyone living with it gets intense bias. This is how just about all rolling news services operate in my experience. My solution is to prefer print media, they get one chance to produce the news and if it's biased in retrosoect I move to another source. I get more than enough news from the economist (biased but not hiding it) and FT Weekend (trust me Saturday edition is great).