I did journalism in high school and I know quite well that how you present true information (framing) or distort true information (for example, by comparing African salaries to the US) is done intentionally to make the reader feel something- guilt, anger, a desire to vote for somebody specific.
Does experience in high-school journalism support the claim that professional journalism is all a conspiracy to manipulate the reader? I doubt it, and I edited my high-school newspaper for two years lol
Did I say conspiracy? No. I'm making a generalization. If you have sources for objective journalism, I'd love to see them. The closest I've seen was the Economist about 5-10 years ago.
Topical example to back up the claim that newspapers try to make you feel stuff, Prince Harry, UK tabloid headlines. Same fundamental information in all cases:
A simple phrasing like this does not reflect the reality of humanities evolution and resulting biology. We're social creatures, requiring that others make us feel things: https://www.apa.org/monitor/oct05/mirror
Nothing specific to 2023. In 399 BC, Socrates went on trial for corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens, and for two impious acts: "failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges" and "introducing new deities".
It is for sure specific to 21. century. Socrates was exposing fake specialists and decided to die instead of flea.. Specialists are debunked daily and they keep their posts, no consequences
If true information induces feelings in you, perhaps it's more constructive to reflect on the information rather than the motives of the reporter?