I've linked to Daily Yonder previously (most notably here). The site looks at rural and small-town America in a refreshing (non-stereotypical) way. It recently carried an interesting article on a national news network's attempt to get help from an Appalachian non-profit for a pre-election story on Appalachia. Aaron Phelps explains:

At first, the Fox producer seemed vague about the request. What were they really after?

It turns out what they actually wanted was an escort and introduction to the poorest mountain community we knew of. The story they had already decided to tell before they stepped foot in the region was how politicians have forgotten the area and forsaken the people around the issues of poverty and the drug epidemic.

Spoiler: We said no.

Phelps explains:

Appalachia has always had a problem with media outlets wanting to boost their sales by exploiting “poverty porn.” They come get photos and stories of handpicked, downtrodden people, and instead of offering solutions or asking for change, they quote people of privilege whose answer is that poor people should pick up and leave. Or they blame whichever political party they oppose. They are like a carnival barker hawking a sociological sideshow: “Step right up and see a Third World country in your own backyard!”

Phelps then proposed conditions under which his group would help Fox News. The conditions included not discussing poverty without discussing a solution, not exploiting addiction, and showing hope. These and similar conditions were apparently too much for a network that already knew what it was looking for -- they moved on. (Note -- Phelps' story isn't about Fox News; he seems to suggest that other news sources are just as guilty.)

This is an excellent article on understanding why the Appalachian stereotype is so pervasive and so difficult to overcome. I highly recommend it.

I did some additional research on the term "poverty porn" since the term was new to me. Wikipedia uses this definition:

any type of media, be it written, photographed or filmed, which exploits the poor’s condition in order to generate the necessary sympathy for selling newspapers or increasing charitable donations or support for a given cause.

The term's origin goes back to the 1980s when it was more commonly used especially in connection with some of the African relief efforts. Apparently, its overuse put it out of favor with charities but it now appears to be back. And while it would not have been called that back in the early-1960s when the media discovered that poor people lived in Appalachia, the condescending tone that characterized that earlier coverage is still a part of present-day media representations of our region. (See here for the most recent example.)