I've been hearing a lot of news about the pipeline protests, and yes, I've seen the video. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then chances are, you're watching NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, FOX or some other large corporate media entity to get your news. You may even listen to talk radio or watch some comedy "news" broadcasts to stay informed. The problem is, their money all comes from the same place.
If you ever find yourself asking "Why isn't this on the front page of NBC?" when you see a video on liveleak or some other uncensored internet backalley, you're not alone. Going back to the pipeline protest it's obvious why the mainstream news doesn't cover it, just like they didn't cover all of the election fraud. All you have to do is watch the commercials. Turn on Good Morning America, Nightly News, or any other news entertainment and during the commercial breaks you are guaranteed to see at the very least, one bank or investment commercial and probably a car commercial or two as well. It's the same banks, investment groups, and auto companies that notoriously fund the Hillary Clinton campaign, and I'm sure they have a LOT of interest in seeing the pipeline go through as well.
The branding is obvious. Television and the internet is a visual media so watermarks and logos can be found everywhere, especially during weather forecasts, the most watched portion of the daily news. This is where in-broadcast watermarks can be placed without disrupting the segment, especially if it's tied into the graphics that surround the weather map.
The bank, utility, and auto sponsors are clear, and ALL have an interest in oil pipelines.
When the media is funded by banks and utilities, you're never going to get the whole truth, especially when it would damage the interests of the sponsor. Unless you pay attention to smaller sites like "occupy", "freethoughtproject", and others you're very likely to suffer from "media blackouts". You never heard about Iceland rounding up and arresting their bankers on American mainstream news until well after the fact, and only in passing because, once again, they have bank sponsors. They wouldn't want Americans getting any strange ideas, now would they? Unfortunately without these same massive sponsors, the alternative news sources that did write about this event, sometimes have to post clickbait articles that are more tabloidal than informative just to get ad revenue to survive. This erodes their trustworthiness in the eyes of their readers and sends many right back to NBC, CBS, FOX, ABC....
The problem is, all you have to do is threaten to pull funding, or if you're the government, threaten to pull a broadcasting license and they'll shut up about whatever news is a problem for your interests. What would a corporation like NBC do if they suddenly couldn't broadcast and had to rely solely on cable to deliver their content? It would be the end of the company, and so they bow to pressure. "Freedom of the press" only applies to print and was never expanded to cover the airwaves.
And with "news" in the precarious position it's in right now, it's hard to blame them. Everyone reads news for free online now, and a lot of us use ad blockers, so they're not making nearly as much money as they used to in print maybe 20 years ago. They're getting desperate, so they've upped the entertainment value with orchestral stings and advanced CG, and they've become far more sensational, only covering the worst news to keep people afraid, and watching. Sponsors will still leave if people stop watching their ads though, even if they keep quiet about all of the "inappropriate" topics. They still need "asses in seats", as the old entertainment saying goes.
That's exactly what it's become, too. It's not news anymore, and it hasn't been for a long time. News doesn't make money anymore. It's a real eye opener when you come to that realization. What we're watching is just another form of entertainment on the hypnotic rectangle we all keep in our living rooms, and ratings rule reality.