>

Maybe it’s poorly articulated, because I added the profits motivator to point out it isn’t just about ratings, which is what the previous commenter suggested. 
I think we probably all agree on large parts of what the problem is, so I’m not really saying they’re wrong so much as trying to have a discussion.
And the only ones who fall for it are uneducated republicans. >

And the corporate media. >

nah corporate media knows very well. They only prioritize ratings. nothing more nothing less. >

Rupert Murdoch would disagree >

honest media doesn't generate wild ratings like bullshit media does. If anything, Murdoch knows this more than anyone. >

I’m not sure what the point you are trying to make is. 
I would definitely argue that many of the actors within corporate media believe their own bullshit, but it’s hard to know what they’ve been coached to say by their producers and what is actually genuine reaction to an event (it’s probably mostly comes from production meetings). 
I think the “corporate media” such as it exists (lumping in the big 3, Fox, CNN, and yea, even msnbc) often fail at framing issues in ways that actually communicate the stakes, taking low effort approaches and arguments to topics so they don’t have to pay/intern a ton of researchers so their producers fully understand issues before they go on air. The fact that it’s cheaper to recycle lazy arguments has more to do with keeping costs low than chasing some outdated Nielsen model.
As for Fox, they make shit up out of nowhere to fuel a rage machine. It pulls in people that hate watch and people that like watch, and this model works all over the globe. They don’t chase the news so much as define it (green m&m not sexy enough? Xbox too woke?) and the rest of the corporate system try’s to catch up and respond as if it makes any difference. 
What I’m trying to say is that there is a lot of money in keeping the same arguments going and just making shit up. You could argue that John Oliver does well with a show that present facts in an interesting way, but I guarantee his show would be nowhere near profitable enough to slot into CNN, and it has more to do with having a paid research team than chasing ratings. CNN wishes their videos got watched as much online as Oliver’s did. They just know they wouldn’t make as much producing similar content.
Long way of saying that mainstream debate on just about any topic is fucked beyond recognition if you get all of your info from cable news, which many do. >

None of that disagrees with 'they chase ratings/profits' like the other person said though. If anything you're agreeing and adding details...