There is a very blurry line between media and gossips these days. Media publish unverified gossips while ironically the Gossip columns tries to pass off their stuff as 'news'.
Stories or gossip is more likely to be accepted without questioning if it fits the existing media narrative. All new information and news have to have a background from which they could be made sense of and they have to be framed within what the reader already knows. If you introduce facts that doesn't fit the narrative, it will not make sense to people and is less likely to be given emphasis in the press.
Example.
Has anyone heard of the
? I bet not many. It was a suicide bombing on US soil, but because the guy's name was Joel Henry Hinrichs III and not Abdul Muttalib, not many here probably knows about it.
The narrative around China works the same way. It heavily intertwined with the narrative about human rights. Any human rights story put within this framework immediately makes more sense, is more plausible and therefore is more printable. Whatever the journolistic community likes to say, they are not agents of objective reporting, they are teams built and hired to endorse a certain worldview. Propagandists for the 21st century.
