Newspapers and periodicals still set the tone at higher echelons, richer/older/more socially standing demographics, politicians, journalists, academics, and so on. Whether in print form or web format doesn't matter much.

And TV still has a stronghold in most families. Even with the internet, people watch more TV now than they did in the 70s and 80s ( https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/05/when-... ) -- and it's not all Game Of Thrones and the like.

But the point is rather moot, as the force feeding doesn't need to happen through newspapers/TV. The web, and even social media, would do just as good.

The main thing is to have the same narrative fed 24/7, with small diversions (e.g. everybody agreeing that X is the enemy du jour, but disagree on being hawks or doves against it. For even more fun, usually the "doves" don't promote a much softer touch that the hawks, just disagree on the details and subtlety).

>If you really think the reason people prefer read US-weekly to civil wars in foreign countries is because "The Man" then you're in for a rude awakening.

Not sure what the above means.

But people don't even care about civil wars in foreign countries, until their government decides to be involved, and to the degree that it reflects one or another partisan view.

There are tons of civil wars and atrocities Americans don't know and don't care enough to learn about. They just take a second hand opinion on the ones they are told, from one of the opinions on offer -- if there wasn't one, they'd be blissfully discussing some actor's divorce, The Joker or whatever the media bring up next.

World affair savvy, the public, is not. Heck, most couldn't even name the name of the Vice President, or their Senator, but they can still manage to mumble that "X" (enemy du jour) is bad, because this or that news item caught their eye, it's what's talked about in editorials, and social media viral stories, and so on.