I dont understand this notion of media responsibility to report on matters of grave importance and substance. As long as media is profit driven (which the vast majority it is) I expect nothing from them other than to please their shareholders. If reporting on drones drove more clicks and generated more page views we'd see media rushing to report on such coverage. The fact that they don't to me says it's a demand problem. People just are not interested in facing up to news that their government is bombing other countries in their name.

Public news organisations, on the other hand, should definitely be held to the expectation of reporting on issues in priority of importance, with not a shred of concern placed on how popular the reporting will become.

This is not surprising at all that npr has been covering this extensively, and also nobody bothered to listen.

During the end of Preisdent Obama's first term and into the start of the second term there was a series of uproars about illegal drone strikes in Pakistan[1]. This was covered on the front page of the papers I see (WSJ, NYT) and discussed extensively in podcast-land. See also, related discussions from HN [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan

[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?query=drone%20strike&sort=byPopulari...

Your personal ignorance to stories presented by the media doesn't prove that they are failing to cover important issues.