Just picking up on the media blackout point, as it is something I couldn't disagree with more.
Access to media has never been easier or more accessible, and there's never been so much choice either. From limited radio, TV and print media in the 1960s to today where virtually everyone can become a publisher. There's such a great bandwidth of information now that, ironically, unless you're specifically looking for something then for the current consumers of news the information seems just as hard to find. If it isn't in the Most Read section of a news site, not trending on social media or not in the first page of an internet search then it can easily be overlooked.
Journalism has also changed. There is far less investigative reporting, understanding the issues around why something is happening and gaining different views - it has changed to more reporting of what is happening, and above all else reporting it first before anyone else. That changes the consumption of the story, where people start to understand less about why something is happening but more that it is happening. But, if it isn't in that top ten of the day, then the majority will not know about it because they'd have to actively seek it out.
A perceived media blackout is not a failure of the event being reported, it is a failure of the potential consumer's changed habits to access it. It also explains why some very minor events, should they get sufficient momentum, get blown out of relative proportion.
Unsurprisingly, modern politicians and policies are focussed on the mainstream. It is one of the reasons that they appear so uncomfortable and out of their depth when the smaller yet disproportionately loud events and activities gain traction and make the main headlines.
I've worked with the media for the past decade or so and the shift in that time alone has been dramatic. Just my observations, for what they're worth.
