The parent comment's claim is that he won the primaries because corporate news deliberately and tirelessly covered his campaign to give him tremendous visibility, which led to his winning campaign. I disagree and think they covered his campaign because it generated clicks and therefore money, which is most of what they care about, and accidentally got him elected in the process. I think they guessed incorrectly at how successful he would be, probably because they're massively out of touch due to both being in a echo chamber while also extremely privileged.