Some of the more loaded words in the sentence in boldface:

• More notably, the filtering effects of pressure from advertisers was not widely acknowledged in the interviews: only a few journalists intimated otherwise, suggesting that people in news media always have to be concerned about biting the hand that feeds them.
• Something even more worth noticing is that the quiet censorship from advertisers wasn't admitted often in the interviews; not many journalists said otherwise, making us suspect that they always have to be scared of the powerful people who pay their salaries.
• Not many journalists agreed that there was pressure from advertisers, which might make you think that people in news media always have to be concerned about biting the hand that feeds them.
• Because so few interviews contained admissions that advertiser pressure mattered, we concluded that it was because the journalists were scared of losing their salaries.
• Surprisingly, most journalists did not talk about pressure from advertisers to filter content;only a few said otherwise, hinting that they have to be careful not to bite the hand that feeds them.
• No attention was paid in the interview to the pressure fom advertisers to be selective. Some journalists were afraid to speak out for fear of losing their jobs.

It's worth thinking about what happens when you substitute "synonyms" for those words or phrases (or others, actually; those are only the most obvious). Ask yourself, what's being assumed here without being said?  What do the writers expect their reader already to believe? What can you tell about what they believe is so obvious it doesn't have to be said? For example, almost all these retain the phrase "pressure from advertisers." If the phrase "influence of advertisers" or "anticipation of advertisers' desires" were used, it wouldn't assume that advertisers are exerting pressure. Are they?  It's not said. We assume it.