Quote:
Originally Posted by Our House
If a story is too damaging to someone as popular as Trump, isn't that a reason to hold it? I'd think it's irresponsible to incite the base to riot, but also irresponsible to hold back something so important.
Define "isn't that a reason"?
Sure, it might be some rationalization that some Fox News editor comes up with.
Is it a valid reason? No.
Are you describing how you think the world empirically operates? Seems dubious. If by chance some highly partisan type is the ONLY person or a small group of people are the only people in possession of the damaging information, I guess what you're describing might be some decision tree they go through: "well we have this story that's embarrassing about Trump but it might cause disruption and riots, so let's sit on this one, we kinda like Trump anyway." But it doesn't really seem logical. The US had holistically bad media but we do have a lot of it. It's a dangerous gamble in the media to sit on a story and let others claim the prize.