My post wasn't meant to "challenge" you in some way, I hope it didn't come across that way.
It's not a conspiracy. That is crucially important. Publishers simply have interests of both political and economic nature.
To give you an example: I once did an internship at a small newspaper via my university, and at one point me and the rest of my class had the opportunity to ask the editor-in-chief some questions. I asked him about the political alignment of the paper and how this translated into everyday work. In other words, how "the word" was passed down.
He got a bit sweaty, said is was a conservative paper (CDU) and that reporters were basically free to report on whatever they wanted, unless on certain topics.
One of those topics was the speed limit. He knew that the group of owners was staunchly against the implementation of a speed limit on the Autobahn and any article disagreeing with that would not make it into the paper. [A speed limit would reduce CO² emissions by 10%, would lower the cost of crash damage and most importantly, would reduce the number of annual casualties by an estimated 20%. Still not popular in Germany, because of close ties between massive car manufacturing industry, politics and press.]
This is just one example of one topic at a small paper. The bigger the paper, the closer the ties to political and economic power. At a paper like the Times, you don't piss off the big companies that secure your job via advertising money. You don't (really) antagonize politicians (unless they're Corbyn), because it might backfire. If you want to publish articles that state "Hey, we're commiting war crimes. All the time. Please get rid of the president", there is no way it gets past the editor's desk in a major newspaper. Not because people don't want to hear about it. People were interested in Watergate, they were interested in the topic covered in "Spotlight" and they'd be interested in who killed 230 innocent people over what, and who's responsible.
I for one do not think that the loss of life of one those unfortunate souls on that bridge in London is any more tragic than that of a child murdered by American bombs. Only someone really wicked would rate a person more or less important based on their looks or origin. And any reporting that calls itself "unbiased" would not, either. Accordingly, a paper should sell the same amount of copies whether it reports on a crime in Iraq or one in London or Berlin, or Paris (excluding attacks on home soil, of course). Personally, I'd be even more interested in reporting on crimes committed by my own government, because it is something I'd have a moral obligation to change and can actually influence. I can't influence the murderers of ISIS.
But that would require a good deal of information that simply is not given.