Your theory about the media does not take into account that their major motivation is to make money, not to coerce you.
If YOUR theory were to be correct, i.e. that media outlets are in business to make money, then they would be happy to sacrifice message for ratings, which is what makes them money (ratings).
The media tells us what the majority of their audience wants to hear.
Really?

Sit back. Take a breather. Think about what you just said.
If you don't agree with the media's reporting style, it is like because you aren't part of their focus audience.
Look, I'm not into left vs. right ranting, I've said that before. What I have an issue with is the media's priorities. In my book, if you didn't have an issue with a senile old hag (Albright) playing an active part in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of little kids in Iraq (and the
blowback that followed,) you CERTAINLY shouldn't have an issue with Melania walking 2 feet behind the POTUS showing obvious signs of being upset. Tough SHIT. It pisses me off just having to point out these kind of inconsistencies because this is the mind-blowing reality that we have been made accustomed to. If Melania isn't happy, you know what? Let her grab her shit and leave. There'll be 10,000 other hoes out there jumping on the Donald's dick while she's putting her shit in the suitcase.
When I briefly lived in Canada many years ago, their media coverage/perspective was vastly different than ours. The same could probably be said about the media in most other countries.
What you were able to see in Canadian outlets was information, not message, information. Two different things.