Alright, so the search engine told me that "ESG" is a set of criteria to rate sustainability of corporations/investments, where E stands for environment (ressource efficiency/non-pollution, ...), S for social (worker safety, non-discrimination, ...) and G for governance (risk management, compliance, anti-corruption). Please correct misconceptions.

You are suggesting that government pays writers to show those kinds of sustainability in a overly positive way?

How would western media look if it wasn't a trojan horse? Would it show slavery, environmental pollution and feudalism in a much more positive light? How can you be sure that the mismatch here is from goverment/corporate influence on writers, and not simply a difference in ethical values between the average writer and you?

Its not just these three goals. Like the Patriot Act names rarely tell the full story.

>not simply a difference in ethical values between the average writer and you?

Because they only done this since its socially and commercially profitable?

> How would western media look if it wasn't a trojan horse? Would it show slavery, environmental pollution and feudalism in a much more positive light?

The Boys does this, but ironically - but a lot of people apparently miss the point of it being ironic / a pisstake.