The media is a propagandistic machine seeking to sell you, the consumer, its product. This is why I am so bewildered (and I say this in the least pretentious way possible) by those who post away their thoughts on social media with unflinching confidence as if they know what they are talking about. The problem is most people are tragically clueless as to what they are talking about since, more often than not, they are profoundly hypnotized by their favorite mainstream (propagandistic) news source. What is even worse is that most people often seek to hear what they already want to be incontrovertibly true. Instead of thinking critically and carefully about the obvious bias that these news corporations possess (e.g., FOX, CNN), people adhere to what they say with unquestionable obedience. The reality is that the vast majority of the public is obtaining information from highly deceptive corporations that are willing to obfuscate the truth at all costs.
Why is the range and scope of debate in mass media so vastly limited, even in democratic societies that are champions of the free exchange of ideas and thoughts? Why are ordinary people so profoundly uninformed despite the absence of overt restrictions on the flow of information? We in the US, for instance, do not live in North Korea where there exists extreme media control. It would seem that North Korea is the propaganda machine, and the US, comparatively, appears much less propagandistic. But the reality is that the US is very much propagandistic in its media, as is Western media altogether.
In Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman argue that the media is essentially a powerful ideological institution that works for the special interests of privileged (elite) groups that dominate domestic society, the state, and the global order. They call this the “propaganda model of communication” which has five basic functions.
1: Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation. The dominant mass media are massive profit-based organizations that must cater to the special interests of controlling investors. These media corporations are concerned solely with profitability, rather than accurately and fairly reporting news. The influence of media corporations is predicated on their ability to attract investment above all else.
2: Advertising License To Do Business. Since the largest source of income for news organizations comes from advertising rather than sales or subscriptions, it is the political stance of advertisers that determines the political stance of news agencies and other media organizations. The implication here is that insofar as a corporation has interests, they are mainly economic.
3: Sourcing Mass Media News. Herman and Chomsky wrote, "The large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access to the news by their contribution to reducing the media's costs of acquiring [...] and producing news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become routine news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers."
4: Flak. Flak refers to the strong criticism the media receives. Chomsky and Herman discuss the external pressure media organizations face as a structural limitation of what the media can report. Flak can be incredibly expensive for the media, either due to loss of advertising revenue, the costs of legal defense, or the media outlet's public image. Flak, moreover, can be organized by powerful, private influence groups such as think tanks, for example. In short, flak can serve as a deterrent for the reporting of certain factual information.
5: Anti-Communism or The War on Terror. This concerns a common enemy that can be used to marginalize dissent. Chomsky and Herman wrote, "This ideology helps mobilize the populace against an enemy, and because the concept is fuzzy it can be used against anybody advocating policies that threaten dominant interests.” In the original 1988 version of Manufacturing Consent, Anti-Communism was included as a filter, but since the end of the Cold War, Chomsky has said that anti-communism shifted to the “War on Terror,” which he considers a major point of social control.
At the end of the day, the media must be met with serious skepticism since its primary function is to obfuscate the truth in exchange for profitability and broader special interests. The media thrives on sensationalism, emotive control, the creation of echo chambers—and, of course, propaganda. I would encourage you to break away from the mainstream media and begin reading scholarly literature from both sides. If you are more right-leaning, read Noam Chomsky. If you are more left-leaning, read Thomas Sowell. Read things from people on both sides who, in hopes of discovering the truth, dedicate their lives to thinking critically and carefully about the world.
“The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda.”—Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman: Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media
Is it really the media really the ultimate culprit (along with corporations) or is it - get ready for it - "sin"- in my case, I mean taking ourselves to be limited, separate beings, cut off from the Infinite Intelligence sometimes referred to as G_d)
Is this veering too far from your main focus? Since you're teaching psychology, I'd like to make a strong recommendation for a radically different view of what is happening int he world, FAR from anything Chomsky has ever dreamed of:
"The Psychology of Human Development," by Sri Aurobindo. The newer title is "The Human Cycle," but the essential view is the same. He also later wrote "The Ideal of Human Unity," which shows in a way I've never seen anywhere else how humanity can come together, internationally, in a way which is organic, locally focused, and devoted to the Supreme Reality manifest in and as all of us.
Considering he led the independence movement in India prior to Gandhi's entry on the scene, he clearly has some street cred with regard to world events (he also pleaded with the British in the early 1940s to make some changes to their policies with regard to Muslims and Hindus. In retrospect, many histories say if his words had been heeded, there would never have been the Hindu-Muslim riots of 1947 nor would Indian have been split with the creation of Pakistan)