[Relsenlilky]

I heard "somewhere" that there was a worldwide famine. No news of it though.
I have another example. During the last days of protests in Egypt, the last forty-eight hours to be precise, the first page in newspapers in my country was about little girls who disappeared. I didn't really wonder why two little girls were more important than a historical event with potentially tremendous consequences - it's just normal.

True, the press is a business that needs to find money to keep running, especially through advertisements. Those who buy it eventually decide what's in it, the same way a scientist, working for a company, will bias his results in favor of the company. It's normal and it's how it works, the "freedom" may be a right but for it to be effective you would have to ensure an independent source of income, and even that doesn't exist (imagine subventions from the government, sounds "independent" ?) This is only the work of demand and offer.
And that's not the problem. The problem is, advertisers also have buyers, which are the same public the medias have. They'll make sure the news sold are the news the people want so that they read those news, and read the ads'. Ultimately, the reader "decides" what's in his newspaper, the same way the content of this forum is decided by it's users : try to make a thread per day about unemployment, without it being fresh news, at best people will just eventually ignore those. And I say at best. If people were interested to read about numbers of unemployed persons, that news would sell. It doesn't, people are not interested. The medias can't force you to get a given information, they can only inform you of what you want.
It's not that people are blinded, ignorant or anything. It's just that the economic crisis is a news two years old at least, and figures of high unemployments have become a routine. On occasions, like a report, a poll or a political event, it can be reminded as a background, but not much more. People more or less know already.

I also suspect your media source to be too engaged. An expert on communication, talking about something's "true nature" and the "truth" is heavily suspect. Especially if there is a will to make people react in a given way : the press is meant to inform, not influence. That people don't want to read bad news is also strange, as when something goes well it usually isn't interesting, it's with problems (the more serious the better) that people are receptive. One usual example is a car accident, with others cars slowing down to look at it - while they certainly don't stop for pretty bushes. I would put my paw in fire that if there suddenly was a scandalous revelation about jobs, every media would be competing without mercy to publish it first - and it would be debated until total exhaustion.

Give the press at least the benefit of doubt.