Agreed, to a certain extent. But it's not just the media. It's also Americans themselves. Very few people in America pay attention to anything going on outside of their borders, except if they could lose money over it. There were very few (if any) news stories on televised news programs about Yemen, but the same thing happened during the genocide in Africa years ago. Nada. Not a word. It wasn't until people started shaming the TV news channels that they started covering it.
I'm quick to defend the media, because I see it as individual reporters working hard to report truthfully and ethically, which dictators and autocrats threaten them with their lives. So there is a distinction to be made here ...
"I'm quick to defend the media, because I see it as individual reporters working hard to report truthfully and ethically"
Well, I'm glad to hear that, but that's not what 'the media' means. Say 'journalists'.
Media: the main means of mass communication (broadcasting, publishing, and the Internet), regarded collectively.
In other words: the corporations. Which as you put it: "So the real culprit here..."
Well I guess that solves that... Yeah, media is very distinct from journalism. Journalists are like .5% of the media... probably less.
You are misinformed. Here is the definition of "news media" from Wikipedia: "The news media or news industry are forms of mass media that focus on delivering news to the general public or a target public. These include print media (newspapers, newsmagazines), broadcast news (radio and television), and more recently the Internet (online newspapers, news blogs, etc.)." [Emphasis mine.]
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_media.
Read your own quote: "The news media or news industry are forms of mass media that focus on delivering news to the general public or a target public...."
It doesn't say 'excluding these things'.
"These include print media (newspapers, newsmagazines)"
Yeah. Those aren't things anymore. Welcome to the 21st century. Don't put your investments in papers or books. They're not doing so good.
"These include..." So.... you could call them 'distinct entities' within the Media...
How was I misinformed exactly?
You're terribly misinformed. You keep drawing a distinction that doesn't exist, that the "media" doesn't include print newspapers. It does. The New York Times continues to enjoy its position in the industry as being the nation's "paper of record." It's the gold standard against which all the media outlets are compared. You act as if you follow politics, and you don't know that? What about the Washington Post? They have always provided leadership investigating political matters in Washington, from the Watergate impeachment to the Trump-Russia investigation.
You seem quick to dismiss their impact on society with your breathtakingly arrogant comment welcoming us to the 21st century. So you're a fanboy of all those clickbait news ads on the internet, just because they're making money? Or maybe you get your news from Facebook (of all things), with "fake news" written by people inspired by propaganda written by state-run media Russia Today? Or maybe you're a fan of internet sites like Breitbart, posting "articles" that are 100% opinion (from the lunatic fringe), and 0% corroboration from legitimate sources? The internet distributes garbage, because there are no adults providing editorial oversight. Yet, you probably think that reading that stuff makes you "woke," right? LOL
"that the "media" doesn't include print newspapers."
I never said that. Pull your head out of your ass.
Oh and another fact:
You know WHY the papers are accurate and less corrupt, right?
It's because they're so obsolete and ignored that the corporations don't even bother to buy them out anymore:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_newspapers
Tell that to Jeff Bezos. LOL
I'm glad you changed your mind.