The problem is not so much that a minority sets the agenda, but that a majority falls for it. I see outrageous flat-out lies that otherwise intelligent folks consume without questioning.
The majority reads what these journalists write. If it seems reasonable, they'll accept it. When they're browbeaten, they'll also accept it, but with a grudge. But don't forget that there are different political, religous and cultural leanings in all media, so the majority is not uniform. Silent they are, though.
There are some outlets, like The Intercept, that are still doing great investigative work, but they get drowned out among the other options, which isn't surprising when so few people own so much of the most popular new outlets.
All that is old school now and replaced by the quick drug-like hit of posting "so-and-so tweeted". It's enough to write about a post of some kind and not actually get comments or context from anybody else, because there always posts for "opponents say" or "advocates say".
I was a web developer for a newspaper and knew they were doomed when they started writing articles about their own comments section.
Implication and notoriety rule the day.
Having actually been the subject of news stories a few times (appearing in multiple papers each time), I doubt that. Journalists managed to shuffle quotes around people, e.g. putting my words in someone else’s mouth or someone else’s in mine, or creatively edited what I said and hence distorting it (published inside double quotes of course), even though I gave all of them a printed document of everything I said in the interview and more.
Yes, of course, that’s what it’s like for the other side. Those people are all bad. We on the correct side don’t have that problem. /s