Much more news than when I was young

Growing up, my father took the Sunday New York Times, just for the magazine. The paper didn't arrive until Thursday, so the news was out of date, but the crossword was still one of the best crosswords in the US, and my father enjoyed solving it (with the help of some relatives). We also took a local morning and evening newspaper. Of course, when I was born, most people got their news from the CBS or NBC television network every night. It was on twice, early evening and late evening. Most Americans got the latest news from whichever of the two networks they preferred (I never noticed much difference) and the details in the morning and evening newspapers that had to be local (since the newsboys had to walk, bike, or drive the newspaper to your door, and newspapers from other places wouldn't arrive for four days). The newspapers were all independent, so there were lots of jobs for reporters, jobs that didn't pay much, but it was easy to find a job. And one could find newspapers intended just for Polish Republicans or just for Italian Democrats. There were newspapers whose business model was 'first with the facts' and newspapers with a business model 'tell the people what they want to see' or the business model 'tell them what I want them to think'. So, if one lived in a big city, one might be able to find a 'first with the facts' newspaper. No more.

Today, fewer than 7 huge conglomerates own all the major news outlets in the US. Almost all city newspapers are owned by one of the conglomerates, and the big national newspapers like the New York Times can be remotely printed and delivered to your doorstep the same day it gets delivered in New York city. So there are very few newspaper jobs, they pay better, but everyone must toe the owners' line if they want to keep their job. Facts are never allowed unless they fit the 'tell the people what they want to read' business model. The 'first with the facts' business model doesn't get enough clicks to be profitable.

However.

Back in the day, we read what a great thing the US was doing for Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, & etc, rescuing those people from a brutal dictator and drug smuggler who kept the nation mired in abject poverty and giving them a democratic, free, peaceful and prosperous paradise. No one dared contradict that story.

However.

Back in the day, my father had a golfing buddy who was a ham, and he offered to let my mother call my grandmother. He put a lot of time and money into being a ham, with an antenna that he'd somehow managed to attach to the tops of all the trees in his yard, meters long so it would pick up the short wave signals. My mother took me to his place so I could say 'Hello,' to my grandmother. One time when we were there, the ham told me he could listen to the Soviet propaganda channel and hear what they said about the US.

'What do they say?' I asked.

My mother immediately said, 'We're only here to call your grandmother and leave. We don't have time for anything else,' and that was that.

Getting a short wave in the US is expensive and difficult, and I never managed it, but I did want to hear what the Soviets said about the US. I never will, of course, because the Soviets have been gone for 30 years.

But the Internet and satellite TV mean I can hear the official Chinese, Russian, Persian, Qatari, French, and British propaganda channels, in English, without getting a ham license (the official US propaganda channels are all in the languages of the people living in brutal dictatorships* who can't get the 'truth' from their own nation's TV or newspapers).

And the other nations' propaganda channels often have video that contradicts the story in the US news outlets. But every decent American (and the decent members of NATO) will tell you never to believe those channels, even if they have solid proof. Decent folks always accept the official American version without question.

*Brutal dictatorships - governments that do not do exactly what the US Deep State wants them to do