The parent comment's claim is that he won the primaries because corporate news deliberately and tirelessly covered his campaign to give him tremendous visibilit

The parent comment's claim is that he won the primaries because corporate news deliberately and tirelessly covered his campaign to give him tremendous visibility, which led to his winning campaign. I disagree and think they covered his campaign because it generated clicks and therefore money, which is most of what they care about, and accidentally got him elected in the process. I think they guessed incorrectly at how successful he would be, probably because they're massively out of touch due to both being in a echo chamber while also extremely privileged.