How Corporate Media Fools the World
Step right up! Welcome to the grand media circus, where corporate news networks and newspapers transform reality into a cornucopia of selective facts. Under the bright lights, your attention is directed exactly where the ringmaster wants it. And nowhere else.
In this exposé, we peel back the velvet curtain to show how powerful news outlets frame issues, obsess over sensational tidbits, peddle their owners’ agendas, and blatantly ignore stories they’d rather you didn’t see. Think of it as a tour through a propaganda theme park, complete with giant neon signs pointing to attractions (read: distractions).
So buckle up, truth-seekers. The ride is about to begin.
Propaganda 101: The Corporate Filter That’s Always On
Behind the scenes, the mainstream press isn’t a freewheeling truth machine; it’s a tightly filtered megaphone for the interests of the rich and powerful. As Chomsky and Herman famously observed, “dominant media are profit-seeking businesses… funded largely by advertisers… dependent on government and major business firms as information sources”. In plain English, media corporations need ads and political support, and so they never bite the hand that feeds them. In practice, this means that stories threatening big advertisers or allies often get buried or whitewashed, while stories that boost powerful friends are repeated until they appear incontrovertible. (And woe to the local climate advocate who fumes about oil ads: the TV network needs those commercial breaks!)
The news landscape is dominated by a tiny corporate cartel. Today, just six giant companies (AT&T, Disney, Comcast, News Corp, Viacom, and CBS) control nearly 90% of what Americans see and hear. In other words, a mere 232 media executives (with over $430 billion in combined wealth) call the shots for almost the entire news ecosystem. The picture is no better anywhere else in the world. When such conglomerates effectively “sell” the public its daily news diet, expect plenty of sugar and corporate seasoning. As one student journalist put it, when only six profit-driven companies own everything from your local paper to your cable network, “the narratives do not challenge the status quo in the ways that could inspire large-scale change”. So if it’s not profitable to rock the boat, you can forget about hearing it on the evening news.
Gaslighting Tactics: In this corporate media world, only a few filters let stories through. To a busy newsroom editorial board, these filters often feel invisible as they only report on what’s newsworthy within elite circles. But the effect is the same: inconvenient angles, underdogs, and complex truths drop right through the cracks. Key tactics include:
Ownership & Advertising Filters: Stories that scare away major advertisers or ruffle CEO feathers often get the gentle treatment or even disappear entirely. (For example, think how rarely you see prime-time TV segments on the oil industry’s role in climate change, and realise this is solely down to the size of Big Oil’s advertising budget.)
Sourcing & Access: Journalists rely heavily on official sources – think government press releases or big-company spokespeople – so the news often mirrors those voices. This creates a game of telephone in which the facts on serious issues become a sanitized corporate soundbite by the time they come down the line and reach you.
Flak & Penalties: Media outlets that stray too far from the acceptable script risk taking fire in the form of legal threats, withdrawal of advertising, or smear campaigns. This is most often orchestrated by the vast PR armies deployed by powerful entities. (Nobody reports too aggressively on a CEO who could yank their ads or subscription revenue.)
Ideological Filters: Even political buzzwords act as filters. Cold War anti-communism once kept silent the “worthy” victims (like Poland) and ignored “unworthy” ones (like Turkey). Today, foreign policy biases and spin terms (e.g., calling a bombing campaign “peacekeeping”) similarly filter how events are framed for us.
In short, the news business is not built on the truth, but on what will keep shareholders happy. As a result, the story you get is often a polished narrative that benefits the powerful.
Framing and Sensationalism: Spotlighting the Intended Fears
Once a story survives those corporate filters, it still has to pass the front-page test. Editors follow one irresistible formula: go big or go home. Fear, scandal, and the photo of a dazed politician clutching his phone nervously can ensure eyeballs and clicks. Meanwhile, nuanced analysis and ongoing crises rarely cut through.
Take how media outlets framed two continuing wars. Researchers at American University compared 7½ years of Yemen coverage to the first nine months of Ukraine war coverage. They found that the tone and frequency were wildly different. In the NY Times, Ukraine war headlines shot into the hundreds in mere months – front pages splashed with updates almost daily once the invasion began. But Yemen’s civil war – now a seven-year human disaster with millions starving – barely broke the front page at all. The first truly headline-grabbing coverage of Yemen’s famine only came in mid-2018, when over 14 million Yemenis already faced catastrophic hunger. Clearly, headlines were set less by the human suffering involved and more by which side the Americans were backing. As the researchers note, Yemen’s victims received episodic coverage (“Strike kills 20”), while Ukraine’s received thematic scrutiny (e.g., “Genocide accusations” in headlines). Meaning press framing turned one conflict into a major global saga and the other into a footnote.
This is the essence of media spin: choosing how to present a story. Editors decide which word to use (are they insurgents or freedom fighters?), who to quote, and what context to give. The effect is subliminal: readers infer that X is important and Y is not. For example, one study of The New York Times found a startling imbalance: in one week, the Times ran 26 separate pieces on Joe Biden’s age, but only a handful on substantive policy issues. Remarkably, almost none of those Biden-related articles mentioned the fact that Trump is almost as old and has his own medical history. As the analysts conclude, running “three times as many articles about Biden’s age as about Trump pulling the US out of NATO” was “a clear example of biased coverage”. Their point is not that reporters conspired, but that by endlessly highlighting Biden’s age concern (and even commissioning polls about it), the media helped manufacture anxiety. Then they reported that anxiety as if it were a surprising story – a classic circular framing trick.
Sensationalism works hand-in-hand with framing. Headlines shout “President Is OLD” or “Scandal Erupts,” because drama sells. Meanwhile, long-burning issues – climate change, social inequality, genocides – often lurk away from the limelight. On important issues, the media often resorts to breathless hyperbole instead of calm explanation. Either way, the narrative is engineered: you get anxious, outraged, or distracted, but you don’t get adequately informed.
The Biden–Trump Distraction Tango
If you need a smoking gun example of selective coverage, look no further than American politics. In 2024-25, the mainstream press treated President Biden’s vitality as a 24/7 reality show, yet was almost deafeningly silent on Donald Trump’s similar issues. When Biden stumbled in a debate or coughed on camera, every network and newspaper replayed it endlessly and dissected his fitness for office. By contrast, when Trump quietly sat out of public view amid persistent frailty rumors (swollen feet, unsteady gait, even a bunch of fake death rumors online), most big media outlets let him slide.
As The Guardian’s media critic put it, Trump’s obvious health problems “barely registered in mainstream coverage.” There were “no front-page write-ups” and “no broadcast packages” when he went missing for a few days. Instead, reporters told their audiences to look at Biden’s calendar, debate performance, and social security photo ops. One columnist ironically noted that the White House’s own cover-up of Biden’s earlier health declines became the news story, while Trump’s lapse quietly dribbled into obscurity. In her telling, the press eventually “went overboard with unrelenting coverage of Joe Biden’s old age” after the debates.
Put simply, ostensibly liberal newsrooms framed Biden’s every quiver as breaking news, and treated Trump’s absence as news that was definitely not breaking. The result was a double standard that kept audiences keyed in on Team D’s problems and away from those of Team R. From a gaslighting perspective, the effect is obvious: viewers sense, even subconsciously, that the sides are being portrayed unevenly. When the media whoops at your candidate’s molehill but yawns at your rival’s mountain, you can’t help wondering who’s really running the show.
Global Spin Machines: Beyond U.S. Borders
This gaslighting isn’t just a U.S. fad; it’s a global show. Around the world, news outlets often reflect national and corporate agendas just as faithfully as their American counterparts. For instance, a U.S. State Department report (covered by Reuters) warns that China has poured billions into manipulating media worldwide. Beijing buys stakes in foreign newspapers, sponsors social media influencers, and even sells Chinese state TV in developing regions – all to bake pro-China propaganda into the nightly news. In effect, China is co-opting foreign media to “create its own information ecosystem,” shielding its citizens and allies from criticism.
Russia is another cautionary tale: under Putin, official channels have been ordered to call the Ukraine invasion a “special military operation,” and are punished for not toeing the line. Independent outlets are shuttered or driven underground, while state TV dutifully “downplays the severity of the conflict” and echoes Kremlin falsehoods about a “peacekeeping” mission. The result is a population effectively gaslit into thinking everything is fine at home, and that any Russian losses abroad are either justified or have been faked. Propaganda this blatant seems absurd, but it works on many otherwise level-headed viewers and listeners.
Meanwhile, Western governments have their own media spins. In democracies, the gaslighting is subtler, but still present and obvious if you look closely enough. Citizens worldwide have noticed how the Western press often underreports atrocities committed by allies or overreports inconvenient truths in rival countries. For example, coverage of U.S.-allied actions in the Middle East, or corporate tax avoidance by friendly multinationals, tends to be tame, if not non-existent. Even in Britain, many news outlets faithfully broadcast corporate talking points on issues like immigration or security. It’s no accident that people in multiple countries say they can’t trust the “official line” – they’ve been here long enough to recognise the tell-tale smell of the gaslights.
We see the results in declining trust surveys: significant percentages of people now worry about “what is real and fake” online. Our experiment with media has taught us that if the story fits the powerful’s agenda, you’ll hear it at Volume 11. If it doesn’t, there’s a good chance you won’t hear it at all.
The Other News: What They Don’t Want You to See
Perhaps the top trick of the media gaslighter is silence. By carefully omitting or downplaying certain stories, the press can give a completely distorted picture. We’ve already seen how Yemen gets the short straw. Think of other “big” issues that rarely make headlines: the corporate capture of politics, the collapse of public housing, the role of weapons contractors in foreign policy, or dozens of crises in many smaller nations. Instead, the cycle is filled with crime minutiae, celebrity spectacle, and election horse races.
Even when issues are superficially covered, the angles can be skewed. Consider climate change: it’s a universal threat, but it just doesn’t sell soap all that well. Elite papers have increased climate coverage (a “300% increase” since 2012, Brookings notes), yet much of that appears in journals aimed at wealthy urban readers. Local news in Midwestern states or rural Asia still barely mentions it. The effect? A rural farmer sees nothing on her nightly news about her fields drying up, even as her metro reader counterpart has a daily special on it. That disconnect is media framing at work – big headlines in certain places, tiny trickles elsewhere.
Or take political corruption. Scandals tied to powerful politicians often get one cycle of buzz and fade, while endemic graft in allied regimes gets a total pass. Meanwhile, sensational but inconsequential stories become front-page fare – like an actor’s addiction issues or a mayor’s high-school yearbook error. These are deemed important enough to debate on cable news panels for hours, while the financial crisis and looming recessions remain background noise. Public memory is short, and funding is long.
Key Gaslighting Examples: Here are some tactics we actually see in action. Notice the parallels with a stage magician’s hand-waving act:
The Big Distraction: Reporters emphasize trivial sensational news (a tweetstorm, a personal scandal) to divert attention from major policy debates (a leaked photo scandal can bury months of serious foreign policy news).
The Double Standard: Stories that might hurt favored politicians or allies get downplayed or spun harmlessly. Conversely, stories that embarrass the “other side” get amplified (as with the Biden vs. Trump coverage).
Blame Shifting: Complex issues are narrowed to individual blame, so systemic causes disappear. Headlines rarely ask “Why did the factory shut down?” (especially if the boss said so) instead of “Factory collapse leaves 100 jobless.” This frames problems as one-offs, not as enduring patterns.
Narrative Interruption: When an inconvenient story breaks (say, a whistleblower’s claims), the media may quickly pivot to a new topic (a celebrity quote or sports win) and slowly drain attention away. Out of sight, out of mind.
Corporate Censoring: If a story threatens a major advertiser or an owner’s interests, coverage is muted or handed over to a “friendly” commentator. (Like ExxonMobil funding climate ads but never releasing climate reports that pin the blame squarely on the industry.)
Foreign Propaganda: State-influenced outlets (like those in Russia, China, or other countries) utilize “useful idiots” to place planted stories in global media or providing enticing junk content that conceals bias. For instance, Oxford’s inventory of online disinformation shows many governments now pay trolls to post on trending news shows, pushing misleading framing (see the Revolving Door of Liars).
Each of these tricks creates a cumulatively distorted view. The audience is left doubting the basics (“Why is every CNN broadcast a punishment chamber for Republicans?”) or lulled into complacency (“Oh, we already fixed that drought by talking about it a lot, right?”).
Conclusion: Peeling Back the Frame
So what lesson do we take from this media gaslight carnival? It’s not that journalists are all villains – many are honest professionals – but that the machine they operate in is rigged. Viewers and readers get a filtered reality where the system is biased toward Big Power. The spin doctors, corporate PR, and political advisers are largely off camera, pulling levers and strings, perpetuating the paradigm. If we don’t question the script, we become extras in a drama written for someone else’s profit.
Our reaction should be skepticism, not cynicism: recognize that every media narrative has an origin story. The next time a news anchor sounds overly gleeful about one candidate’s troubles and eerily silent about another’s, or a breaking news ticker yells about the latest gadget recall while leaving out a looming debt ceiling crisis, remember that’s gaslighting in action. Dig deeper: read multiple sources (including some outside the corporate loop), check data tables yourself, and remember that silence is often as loud a signal as shouting. A newsroom with 6 owners and no competitors is an echo chamber, not a public square.
In the end, corporate media’s global game is satire enough, except we’re the ones paying the price of complacency. Stay sharp, folks. Reality is slipping away, and it needs witnesses who notice.
Sources: Investigative findings and commentary from academic and journalistic studies. These reports and analyses document the patterns around the world.
Wayne McRae is a writer and analyst with a background in tech, coding, and digital strategy. Drawing on years of experience in content creation and marketing, he breaks down complex issues with clarity and edge. As gaslitcatfish, Wayne explores the intersections of technology, media, and culture with an eye for what others overlook.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider a small donation to support my work (Buy Me A Coffee), or becoming a patron (Patreon). Thank you
