I would agree that they are in it for the money and I see money as a blind trust system with corruption "baked in". Their view that the information they present needs to bring them income I'm sure effects what topics they do and don't discuss. I don't believe this qualifies them as a shill or a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. Unless the economic/governmental system as a whole is considered the organization in question to which everyone is a shill for at that point.

Much easier to control those who willingly accept control mechanisms as part of their worldview.

Our economic, judicial, governmental, educational, and media institutions form a large control matrix. Individuals invest large parts of themselves into this matrix and when confronted with information contrary to their understanding of "good" they tend to short circuit as they are unable to fathom realities outside of this matrix. Additionally, to accept that by putting their energy into a paradigm given to them by their authorities that really may not be so good they face taking responsibility for their own actions on an individual level rather than just following the authority which is much easier. This is part of how the majority is being played, although consensually. It takes two to tango.