By their very nature, it is simply not in the corporate media's interest to focus on poverty and the like: So for example: Hence:
The following article comes to mind: "The Poor Will Always Be With UsJust Not on the TV News" FAIR Study by Neil deMause and Steve Rendall According to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau data, 37 million Americansone in eightlived below the federal poverty line in 2005, defined as an annual income of $19,971 for a family of four. Studies of a minimally decent standard of living routinely find that the typical cost is twice as high as the poverty line or higher. Ninety million Americansnearly one-third of the nationhave household incomes below twice the poverty line, a figure far larger than the official number of 37 million in poverty. Yet despite being an issue that directly or indirectly affects a huge chunk of the U.S. population, poverty and inequality receive astonishingly little coverage on nightly network newscasts. An exhaustive search of weeknight news broadcasts on CBS, NBC and ABC found that with rare exceptions, such as the aftermath of Katrina, poverty and the poor seldom even appear on the evening newsand when they do, they are relegated mostly to merely speaking in platitudes about their hardships. In the small handful of stories which addressed this issue, poverty was discussed solely by experts, with no poor people appearing on-screen at all. One thing that is clear from coverage is that if you are poor and want to get on the nightly news, it helps to be either elderly or in the armed forces, presumably because of increased public sympathy. Overall, both the scarcity and the content of network news coverage conveys the sense that poverty is a problem mostly to be worried about on holidays, when it affects those whose poverty is considered shameful, or during natural disasters. http://fair.org/extra/the-poor-will-always-be-with-us-just-not-on-the-tv-news/
The media will always be biased. Journalism majors are disproportionately establishment left, for instance. The Internet has made Chomsky's observations largely irrelevant, or at least they will be in the next decade or two. Anyone is able to be a publishing house with very little capital. Don't be surprised that the information in the media isn't constantly supportive of your Syndicalist agenda. Even in a true free market for information unhampered by the subsidies and monopolies given to media corporations, the bulk of the populace simply does not agree with you. Deal with it.
The media is consistently supportive of established power. Criticism of state policy is limited to questions over tactics. The policy itself is always presented as well intended. Only its implimentation is debated. Such as "are we winning or not?" "Is it costing too much?" "The beneficiaries of our benevolence may be too backward." Or "beyond the reach of our good intentions." The legitimacy of institutions are beyond the bounds. These are the same debates that took place in the USSR when they invaded and occupied Afghanistan. The evidence against this picture is overwhelming, so the fact the bulk of the populace is at least unaware of it only validates Chomsky's propaganda model.
