Depends what one means by "mainstream." RT and Sputnik do a little coverage.

Also not mainstream, TJDS and Chris Hedges cover it.

Furthermore, the growing problems of conspiracy theory cults is partially due to incompetent leadership and lack of journalistic integrity by those at global microphones leading to a dissolution of trust in authorities. The obvious solution to better journalism isn't an alternate reality, but by higher-integrity journalism that is sustainable and independent on the whims of mercurial "family products" executives with undue influence to have anchors fired. And that can had only by outlawing corporate, ad-supported journalism that creates evil, corrupt business model-reinforcing dark patterns and replace them with grant- and subscriber-based journalism.

Also, government-supported news, like BBC, RT, and Sputnik, is a terrible idea because it creates the appearance of a conflict-of-interest in holding government accountable. The Fourth Estate must be separate and independent.

"RT and Sputnik do a little coverage."

Oh come on - Putin funded sources.

"And that can had only by outlawing corporate, ad-supported journalism "

PUTIN.

Good grief.

Time HN sorted out the Putin trolls.

Please don't go into flamewar like this. It just makes everything worse.

Also, insinuations of trollage and shillage and foreign-agentage are against the site guidelines. If you don't have evidence, you shouldn't be posting this, and if you do have evidence, you should be letting us know so we can investigate. Someone having a different view than you on some divisive topic does not count as evidence.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I watch/read RT just like I do BBC, PressTV, telesur and US media like NYTimes and so on. They’re often reporting exactly the same thing, from the same angle even.

You sound like the troll

I wish the original comment to which I replied could show the edit.

I'm no troll, just a very annoyed reader - and UK citizen - who sees The Guardian as proclaiming how utterly fantastic they are while also doing exactly what the Powers That Be want them to say.

The Guardian are ..... words fail me, but truthful and believable are not on that list.

And troll? Nope.

The reason for the lack of reporting in the UK media is the reporting restrictions on criminal cases. they have been spanked repeatedly for coverage leading to jury prejudice and so basically blanket ban any coverage of any ongoing criminal case for the most part. Rules are here https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/reportin...

I don't have a credible opinion about whether that's right but that's the reason.

The extradition hearing is an administrative matter, not a criminal one. Julian Assange isn't being prosecuted in this matter, the case is simply establishing whether he can be extradited in accordance with the Extradition Act 2003 or not.

Therefore, reporting restrictions do not appear to apply here.

Aah interesting. This source claims that reporting restrictions were requested by Assange's team to protect the identity of his partner back in April, but that seems somewhat moot now. I don't know - there may well be a restriction because it does seem strange how little reporting there has been.

https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252481299/Judge-refuses-...

For people who don't know the UK, Computer Weekly is an IT-specific publication but has some form in investigative journalism in topics that are at least tangentially tech-related, notably in one case vindicating helicopter pilots who were blamed in a fatal crash that was most likely caused by software.

I've tried watching a few different US news channels over the years. I think the most insulting part was that you actually call it "News"

I'm not one to throw random, overused terms around the internet but your most popular channel (Fox) is literal propaganda and social conditioning.

All of the three-letter networks are the same. Modern 'news' is a concoction of outrage porn and propaganda designed to keep us watching at all costs. Political polarization is at an all-time high. It's a mess

You think CNN and Fox are the same? I mean sure, CNN didn't exactly report critically on any of the Iraq wars, and I'm sure there's lots of pro-gov and pro-corporate stuff like that. But Fox is literally a propaganda channel for one of the two political parties, only barely masquerading as news.

CNN, NPR all host army psy-ops personnel in their newsrooms https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/apr/12/julianborger

CNN is also propaganda, it's just propaganda for positions that are closer to the truth. Same way that in WW2 both the US and the Nazis had propaganda, but the US propaganda was (much) closer to the truth.

In any case, it's a million times better to come to those conclusions via an unbiased source than via a biased source like CNN.

> but the US propaganda was (much) closer to the truth.

You mean all those racist caricatures of Japanese?

They were absolutely abhorrent, but weren't as bad as the German caricatures of Jews, or the Roma, or the Slavs. I said closer to the thruth, not close to the truth.

"Fiery but mostly peaceful protests"

CNN is no better than fox in the realm of propaganda. I'm assuming you are a strongly DNC leaning person if you have trouble identifying the problem with CNN and yet are quite passionate about identifying it with fox.

It does feel like it's at an all-time high, yet also nowhere near its peak.