I can think of a few reasons why it might happen:

1) Too damaging to powerful people.
2) Too salacious.
3) Too technical for people to understand.
4) Audience doesn't care enough.
5) Could compromise an investigation.

Given that, do you think it occurs? If so, how often?

It obviously happens. #2-5 on your list are potentially very valid reasons not to publish a story (depending on context). It surely occurs daily at every media outlet. #4 especially. The whole role of editing is to choose which stories merit attention and which don't. Don't see much of a thread here without more detail.

Of course. Whenever a big bombshell is dropped, the government is called in to recommended redactions/censoring for some of the facts that may potentially be hurtful to government interests.

You left out #1. For example, if MSNBC confirmed that Trump...

Has been laundering hundreds of billions for Putin and Russian oligarchs.
AND/OR
Has been using his modeling agency for human sex trafficking.
AND/OR
Has made corrupt personal dealings during every encounter with a foreign leader.

...how could they run the story without causing mass disarray?

I didn't leave out #1. That would be a bad reason for media sitting on a story. But you didn't ask specifically about #1. Why structure the post about editorial decisions when you really want to make another Trump/Russia thread?

Anyway, I'll play along with the tone of the thread as a well-meaning look into editorial decisions in media companies instead of what it really is, which is just a ham-handed way to propose a vast coverup between Trump and the media vis a vis Russia: Implicit in the post, I suppose, is that the mainstream media holds back stories the public ought to be interested in but doesn't hear about due to editorial decisions. That surely happens to. Most media is for profit. Stories aren't given time and attention based on merit but on market appeal. That may sometimes line up with some objective consensus about what's important but often won't. Whether unflattering stories about powerful people are shuttered is likely a business decision: are we jeopardizing our access by publishing, can we horse trade for more access with the thread of this embarrassing story, how close are our competitors to uncovering the same story, do we have an ideological agenda laid out by management not to embarrass such and such, etc. Lots of reasons editors would not publish stories embarrassing powerful people; agree almost all reasons are bad.

If you're asking if media is purposefully sitting on stories highly embarrassing to Trump because they want to prevent disarray, I'm skeptical. Presumably that would take a high level of coordination and collusion with lots of other media members to ensure no one breaks rank. Otherwise they are just lighting money on fire.

Disingenuous and unfair. I gave one Russia example and two generic ones.

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.

Yeah. I started the thread under the impression that most posters here thought that MSM didn't hold back.

There's been some mild talk about the topic in the Trump thread, and most people argue that media outlets are more worried about getting scooped than anything else, and therefore they rarely hold back.

Damnit stop adding so much to your edits. I have to keep adjusting my replies.

In that particular post, no. I wasn't describing how I think the world operates. I was actually torn because both ways seemed messed up.

Most media outlets probably are worried about getting scooped. Investing tons of money into investigations only to pick and choose which stories to print not based on return on investment but notions of what might cause a riot or what might embarrass a powerful person seems like an insane business strategy. If that's your modus operandi to simply provide information that satisfies an agenda --don't you just not bother looking for news in that case, and become the Fox News model basically -- no real investigations or breaking news yourself, just a highly partisan pundity infotainment filter to feed others' work through?

Basically if you're the kind of media people that would sit on an embarrassing story about Trump, you probably don't invest any time or money into finding embarrassing stories about Trump and therefore never possess detailed, well-sourced, verifiable stories which would embarrass Trump.

We have media outlets like this. See Fox. But that's not a coverup, they're just in the agitprop business. It's perhaps a shameful thing they do over there at Fox but it's not like a conspiracy.

Dunno if you've been keeping up with current events, but the MSM has dropped a whole slew of highly damaging stories about Trump.

I'm struggling to imagine a situation where an editor knows that a given story is literally going to start a riot. It seems like a pretty contrived situation.

You make this seem more sinister than it is. Ofc if there's some big scandal the gov't is gonna be contacted for a response. If there's a legit security reason to withhold information, the press will certainly do that. I don't think they withhold information merely because it's 'harmful to government interests.'

Is this your covert way of starting an Awan thread?

Media outlets also have to consider how investigative stories can blow up on them. See Dan Rather/George W. Bush.

Not related to riots or whatever, but I suppose there are certain areas where the media would not go in the spirit of your question. Personal medical information for example. If the President was HIV+, I think many journalists would be reluctant to be the one to break that story out of respect for the concept of a right to privacy in regards to personal health matters.

Oh I've noticed. Just a little more than a little I've noticed. And it's pissing me off to no end. If all media is doing this, the country is ****ed.

Journalists cream themselves over watergate even to this day. If there was a chance to bring down trump it's getting out there. In fact its already happened. The press have published 15-20 stories that would have brought down any other president. They didnt hold them back its just no one cared.

Watergate was another era. what shocked people most listening to the tapes or reading the transcripts was all the profanity Nixon used in everyday conversation. today nobody would care.

Another reason journos hold stories is they don't have enough proof to say with confidence the story is accurate.

What if he got the HIV from drinking a hooker's piss in a Russian hotel room?

GW Bush authorized illegal warrantless wiretaps of American citizens, the NY Times knew of this "for weeks" before the November 2004 elections but declined to publish until December 2005 (one of the story's co-authors, James Risen, was set to publish a book January 2006 including the story).

NYT explained that the 13+ month delay was because it took them that long to decide it was newsworthy.

I think this example suggests it is plausible that if Mueller asked a paper not to publish something on the grounds it would harm his investigation, they might comply for at least several months.

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts
Eavesdropping and the Election: An Answer on the Question of Timing

Our House I want you to read this response and really, really think about what it says about your post.

"Awan" must have been before my time. I assume it was some sort of conspiratard thread that went on for way, way too long.

Opposite, Imran Awan is the newest 'look how corrupt the Democrats are' story.

Feb: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...igation-234714

Last week: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...-arrest-240960