By opiate I get the impression of something soporific, sleep-inducing, and mind-numbing. Doesn't the media depend on readership/viewership/listenership for its sustenance? If so, its contents must be tailored to popular demand and that implies the media is simply a reflection of the people's state-of-mind. We shouldn't blame the butcher for killing animals if there's a demand for meat, right?

Marx's comment. in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." doesn't translate to media.

Most newspapers are written at a reading level well above the 6th grade (like 9th or 10th grade level) and the reading level of the media consumer will vary from functionally illiterate to college level reading skills. So, film, games, radio, and television can appeal to the broadest audience because that medium is aural and visual. The New York Times, on the other hand, is text-based, and is written at a higher reading level.

People gravitate to the media that meets their needs and matches their abilities. So what?

It's a mistake to take the content of American television, radio, magazines, and so forth too seriously. Why? Because the content is mere bait. The important messages in most media are the advertisements. Television is on the air to sell products, not to uplift anyone (save for PBS/NPR). Commercial media practices are pretty much the same round the world. (And PBS/NPR equivalents also operate similarly.)

Doesn't the media depend on readership/viewership/listenership for its sustenance? — TheMadFool

Actually, it' depends on the lobbies, the advertisers and the owners. The same goes for politicians. The unique problem of the media is how to sell the dominant ideology and the dominant economic interests to many people.
The media is a form of politics. And politics is economics, as Marx and Clinton said.

It's not a big problem in itself. The level of people's intelligence, culture, independent thinking, courage and moral responsibility is not that high. So the media battle is the rivalry for the sale of the trinket to the natives.

Freedom of the press? The freedom of the people who have millions.

That's certainly part of the truth. And education and parenting also play roles. All part of how people are raised. But the media are making money off doing less and less journalism but calling the news that. And they know that they are passing on products, like advertising, where cognictive science experts are, for example, helping companies manipulate children. There's a lot of blame to throw around, but the media companies are certainly justified - as more well off adults with more education than their average audience and as people making money of slimy crap - in receiving a chunk of it. This does not let anyone else off the hook.