Buddy, if you watch American news media with any level of knowledge about material reality you will be blown away by the level of deception, sensationalism, and servility to power. We all need to chill out when talking about foreign countries.
I hear people saying these kinds of things all the time, but I've never gotten any concrete evidence except "they choose what things to report and leave out things we think are relevant". Ok, that's everyone, you only have so much time/space. I might agree with you for Fox TV, and news in general has had an element of sensationalism from the beginning (who wants to read/watch boring stuff?), but aside from that, what are some examples of deception and servility to power? Where would one go to determine if your accusations are true? And no right-wing / conspiracy sites, please.
Frankly, it seems to me that the only reason your comment is not be libel is simply because you didn't name any specific organization.
Take a look at any foreign policy story. The mainstream media is basically uniformly in favor of bombing and starving other countries. They have only tactical disagreements as to whether it is too costly rather than whether it is a fundamentally criminal act in violation of Article II of the UN charter.
Historically: see Vietnam, El Salvador, Iraq, Afghanistan. Today: Yemen, Palestine, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba. There are many many examples. The new bugaboo is China as a part of the "pivot to Asia".
The difference is the access to information. In China the media you have access to is state-controlled so they control the narrative exactly how they want. You have very limited access to external news sources and media in general[1].
In the US at least you have a variety of different news channels that are everywhere from far left to far right. You can also access news sources from outside of the US that report on the US. Imagine if Fox News was the only news available in the US while Trump was president?
The mainstream media in the US are all owned by capitalist corporations and are pro-capitalist. They represent a spectrum spanning from the far-right* (OANN) to the world right-of-center (MSNBC). The socialist and communist left nearly exclusively uses alternative distribution channels. Even centrist to social-democrats like Bernie Sanders are treated with scorn in US media.
US news is broadcast to the world as widely as possible to support the American empire's soft power projection. It also helps that they report on some news too.
* There are further right outlets in the world, but we're really getting up there these days. At least they're not outright monarchists (though supporting a presidential dictatorship by Donald Trump is getting close).
1. China has prior restraint on everything associated with working in the media - purchase of materials required for publication of newspapers, licenses to publish media, licenses for journalists, all requiring heavy inspection of political views.
2. The US doesn't.
Your other points stand, but this core difference still matters.
I'll agree with that. I'll reup with this criticism by Noam Chomsky though.
" "You don’t have any other society where the educated classes are so effectively indoctrinated and controlled by a subtle propaganda system – a private system including media, intellectual opinion forming magazines and the participation of the most highly educated sections of the population. Such people ought to be referred to as “Commissars” – for that is what their essential function is – to set up and maintain a system of doctrines and beliefs which will undermine independent thought and prevent a proper understanding and analysis of national and global institutions, issues, and policies.""
This is the kind of Chomskyism that leads to nowhere.
You can take the criticism to the letter, so that "no other society" is true because the total of the exact characterization matches only one society, and is thus a tautology. Or you read it more generally, and then the claim that no other society is as indoctrinated is absurd.
All societies are indoctrinated, but US society seems to think it isn't: that's the insight. Also, if you peruse the second link, he says things that are more concrete. I used a more general quote because it is difficult to give a strong argument in a limited space.
