Semantics is defined as the study of meaning. Media semantics can often be muddled and confusing, or infantilising and trivialsing, in the hands of ineffectual practiontioners. Disseminating semantics in the media is an art, a science and a craft.
Having said that, one can apply the findings of Marshall Mcluhan who said the medium is the message, and look at the issue of semantics as playing second fiddle to the issue of normalising subjective worldviews on a mass scale, and the medium used for doing this, whether it be print or television or anything else. Mediums are interesting because there are loaded, like weighted dice or kinked roulette wheels, with their own specific utility: an utlimate form of media would be one which our brains were sewn into and which we could not think outside. But such a media would just like all the others be prey to media philosophy, and would carry with it its own semantic structure designed to frame the debate about what is happening and what is real.
A lot is written about bias in the media. A lot of this bias is formulated in the loaded and politically weighted semantics the media use to frame the debate on certain subjects, and the absence of all semantics to annihilate debate on other subjects. Over very powerful mediums this owenership of the semantic discourse results on the complete ownership of reality and the ability to auithoratively frame the debate on what is real, and the overwhelming ability to subjugate all newcomers to the medium and prevent any way of them questioning its ideological foundations. It takes a lot of trained introspection to even see this operational functionality in the media without confusing it with the unnoticable texture of everyday reality, just as objective seeming as the greenness of grass or the blueness of sky outside your window.
Very privately, the media regularly formulates its philoshopy of what should be allowed to be real by loading the semantics in various forms of media so we are led by the nose throught arcs of cognition that paint a worldview which precisely fits the media’s desires and wishes for how a large mass of people should live and think.
Some quite powerful operators in the media are able to list their opwn specifications of semantic association or semantic structure they want represented in the media. They are the 1% who control how peole think. Some might think this makes them cleverer that everyone else, but in my experience they are as venal and obtuse as anyone else. In all probablity they gained their power and structuralist signification through cheating the system, either by keying their texts or through lies about what is real to the actually intelligent people who are around. If there is a thought leadership it is not in the hands of the 1% but in the hands of whichever philosophical agency has made the media at all possible, and the sooner this agency reclaims the media the better.