Actually the US Gov'mint has been one of the largest producers of "media stuff" for several decades, and using radio, movies, etc., for propaganda is nothing new. The extensive use of "commercial services" such as ad agencies is only a little more recent, but isn't all that new. McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover were big users in their "primes."

The TV stations have the option of airing the stuff or not, and those that show it have the option of revealing or not revealing where the stuff comes from. While the "fairness principle" was occasionally invoked, there was always the possibility that someone would demand, and sometimes even get, an opportunity to offer a rebuttal. No such chance exists today (unless you can afford to pay for it and the media owners aren't offended). [And I'm not sure the plural "owners" is still even vaguely correct.]

The situation is only a little better for print media, not because the ownership and ability to dictate "the boss's line" is less restricted; but because if you have it in print you can more easily check it out with other sources. At least a few people do sometimes notice if it gets too inconsistent. Of course the fraction of people in our population who can still read at the "fourth grade level of comprehension" targeted by the newsrags is so low that they're ignored more and more, as being "politically insignificant."

John