Even with the desire for profits put into account, a lot of Western mass media still try to manipulate public opinion.
For example, when US President Barack Obama was considering launching a bombing campaign against Syria, the public opinion in the United States was generally against it. In response, major American television channels, newspapers and news sites ramped up the reports about the war crimes reportedly committed by Bashar Assad against the Syrian people and how the Syrian people suffer because of Bashar Assad. BBC also did the same thing when the British parliament was discussing Britain's participation in the American armed operation.
If they had been silent, you would have criticized them for that.
They are reporting on these stories because they are hot topics. Ask yourself, what would the world look like if your premise was completely false, would there be any perceptible difference between the world as we see it today if "the media" was completely apathetic? Talk about those issues, don't make a fallacious ridden grab bag of guilt by association.
By the standard that you indict the Syrian media, my brother is also seeking to advance an imperialist agenda of the US. After all, he started talking about Syria just before Obama did. Is anyone who talked about Syrian brutality an imperialist?