Media's number one purpose is to distract you.

Absolutely, I think the truth or 'conspiracies' containing some truth or questions people have about official stories receive less coverage than shit stories about Jodi Arias and Michael Jackson, etc. The truth may be dangerous, so the lamestream media avoids dialog on important stories.

A couple of things about Jodi Arias: she talks - a lot. She talked freely and at length to the police, does media interviews at every opportunity, and even "tweets" from prison during her trial. She's attractive and well-spoken, and spins stories that rival the best fiction writers. Crazy people, people who don't speak English well, and people who are not trying to torpedo their own case, keep their mouths shut.

Also, Jodi Arias sat in a jail cell for more than three years and very few people had even heard of her. Before the trial no one cared, and most cases never go to trial. Not only do we have a trial to watch, but Jodi herself took the stand - because she loves to talk. Defendants almost never take the stand, so most trials are pretty boring.

The power of people's tabloid interests drives the Arias trial. The value to the MSM is advertiser revenue, based on a tabloidesque story that hits the sweet spot for sensationalism, without any collateral damage to any given corporate overlord. The open courtroom (contrived to produce the most media content) doesn't hurt, either.

Events that are staged by those who have MSM brass on their payroll don't get covered for obvious reasons. There is just a handful of individuals within the AP (main dis-info source for SH, Boston, etc) that distribute the MSM "talking points" at the onset of a major FF.

These AP talking points create an initial "culture" that is re-propagated throughout the MSM world for the next couple of days (after the "event") until these same AP journalists (that propagated the initial mis-info) resurface to solidify the MSM "story" a week later by creating the final narrative, for example something like "A week of terror in Boston", with all the intital BS tied up into a nice box for the sheep to ingest. They paint the final story with half-truths from "unnamed officials" and other sources "close to the investigation", throw salt in our eyes, then disappear into the sunset.

Of course that's how it is. The coverage that a event/case gets is inversely proportional to how massively it affects your personal every day life.

This was pretty big news since '08. She's done countless things to delay her trial and changed her story a million times. Now she's finally on trial and even more people are interested. It's just human interest, has nothing to do with lack of conspiracy coverage.