It used to be people had genuine issues/concerns and they discussed them.
Then jounalists stepped in and recorded these issues, they got put into newspapers, other people read the newspapers and about the issues, some readers realised they had the same issues, some readers simply empathised with those who had the issues, some readers called for action on the issues. Often readers would discuss the issues they had read about.
This is how things were.
Over time some newspapers expanded, collecting stories from ever larger geographic areas, and were read by ever larger groups of people. Other newspapers didn't make the change or were squeezed out and those smaller, more localised newspapers closed.
With only big stories making it into the big newspapers people had more to discuss with people from a wider area - they shared the same news. Local stories were back to being only discussed amonst close groups of friends.
Around this time the newpapers realised that they were no longer reporting what people were already talking about, rather people were talking about what was in the newspapers. So now, instead of the media reporting the peoples news, the media were telling the people what their news was.
People continued to react in the same way to the news they read - they discussed it, empathised with some of it and called for action on some of it. But they were no longer connected to the original issues, they were now connected with the newspapers storys about the issues.
Like pavlovs dogs drooling when they heard the bell even if there was no food - the newsreading public would react to a story even if there was no real issue behind it.
Monopoly or near monopoly on the media became a hugely powerful tool to manipulate the public - hence big media and poliitcs becoming intertwined. They choose the bell to ring and how loud, the public duly react as if there was really food to be had - even if there is none.
Despite the best efforts of the state and mainstream media, communicaiton has become partly democractised - particularly with the internet and the social media it supports.
There are some hicups - radicalisation and cultish activity has been induced in some by groups using the techniques once only available to the state/msm. But once communicaiton is fully open these technique will be useless, as people will be free to choose what influences they are (or are not) subject to - it will not be dictated or twisted by restricted access to news and communications.
My contribution to freeing people from the biased influence of the state, bbc and main stream media is the creation (still on going) of www.radiofreeuk.org - an unregulated platform/channel for the free disemincation and communiation of information, education and entertainment with out the establishments so called progressive socialist agenda.