Actually, this is a relatively easy affair to handle.
On day one as they arrive to monitor your news organization...you note that the top story will be developed today...life on the Detroit streets. So they need to travel with the crew into the heart of Detroit....meet some thugs...get offered some crack...and feel fear at every turn.
On day two, you state the top story is press freedom in the Ukraine, so you fly them in...let them feel stress and pressure of survival as the crew reports from the battle lines of a civil war.
On day three, you drag them off to a lobbyist sting where the guy admits that he pays off Senators, Representatives and FCC board members. By this point....the monitor gal is beginning to question her purpose in life.
On day four, you interview some crippled-up ex-Army guy who isn’t getting any support from anyone and tells a four-star weeper epic of his life and sorrows.
On day five, you take the monitor gal to the company HQ’s that she works for (Social Solutions International). It’s a minority owned (Hispanic) and woman owned....so they get contracts ahead of most others. The PhD head? Susanna Nemes.
So the news team starts to analyze the monitor’s own company, their contacts with government organizations, which is the only way to get better paying contracts, and their business plan. Critical reports....mean more business. So the news organization then pulls out a ethics package and starts to ask questions of the monitor.
The game ends at that point. Reset to zero. Everyone starts to remark about the weather, the chances of the Yankees this season, and if Hulk will win over the Undertaker. Simple enough?
I believe you are missing the point.
They don’t care what news is gathered, where it’s gathered, or how it’s gathered.
They want to be able to control what is made available to the public.
They want to be the final editor of the news once it is gathered.