My mandatory Ethics Journalism lecture didn't include as acceptable journalistic practice anything about accepting money from outside organisations to write about their subject of choice.
What I did learn in media theory however are the many ways the media can manipulate its audience.
One of the simplest techniques, beloved by state broadcasters and private media alike is a theory called agenda setting.
Even if everything else about your reporting is above board, by focusing on certain subjects and/or ignoring others, you can manipulate your audience's perception of reality.
Of course in today's world that theory, first posited in 1972, no longer applies the same. We can seek out what stories we want to read, we can find the most obscure stuff on countless news blogs and the public can very much now be thought of as setting the agenda if you look at how social media stories and influencers now seem to dominate the traditional media.
And undeniably, as many of us are now aware, the public's perception of reality is even easier to skew through social media. Money talks, unashamedly so, and unregulated the rule of corporations is absolute.
Arguably however, one thing that hasn't changed is the legitimacy that is conferred on a topic if traditional media outlets pick it up. And runs and runs with it, like the Guardian has done with their intense promotion of transgender ideology.
And by steadfastly refusing to report that one stakeholder group has been very effectively prevented from freely participating in a democratic process about a law reform, where - like all other stakeholder groups - they sought discuss how this legal reform may impact on their rights, the Guardian (amongst many other media outlets) has very firmly positioned itself not only in opposition to that stakeholder group but also in opposition to the democratic process itself.