Looks like it'll be more whataboutism fodder for GOP apologists.

All media outlets, mainstream or not, "hold back" some stories, but for dumber reasons than are being suggested. I'd guess causes include stuff like editor had a terrible hangover, writer forgot to call a source and handed the piece in with a bunch of TKs, then moved on to the next thing and forgot to follow up, or the outlet decided to pivot to video and the editor who had the piece burnt it in protest.

Now I'm looking forward to the tell-all, behind-the-scenes book you'll write after you quit The Atlantic.

Wow this is cray.

lol

Yeah, I went to specify that in the OP but thought everyone would understand that editorial procedures are solid at the reputable outlets we're discussing, and that unconfirmed stories hardly ever get published until they're confirmed. Despite Trump's bull****, fake news and retractions are rare enough that we don't even talk about them here unless there's a Trumpist in the house.

No YOU think about a poconoder post. I got other **** to do.

The MSM intentionally buries stories all the time. In fact, if it isn't about the mind numbing pablum of the Donkeys-vs-Elephants info-tainment crap... it's almost certain to be buried. That is, in fact, and of course, the whole purpose the Donkeys-vs-Elephants info-tainment crap serves to begin with... to drown out everything else.

It's the Elephants' fault! (joking, but seriously it is)

Trump is clearly the biggest thing in politics. Normal people can have a discussion about Trump without any mention of party. Elephants can't go 10 seconds without pinning some tale on the donkeys.

Nobody covered the prison strike. It was like it didn't happen. Donkeys & Elephants both ignored it 100%. And since it didn't involve neither Donkeys nor Elephants the MSM ignored it 99% too.

That's the whole purpose of the Donkey/Elephant/MSM-Industrial-Complex... drown everything else, everything that matters, out.

Sad as it is, almost none of the wildlings free folk care about prisoners.

The MSM is directly complicit in this.

This prison strike is the perfect example. As far as the MSM is concerned prisoner workers don't really exist. It's hard to get peeps to care about other peeps whose very existence has been denied.

This x 100. A good story isn't going to be buried because sufficient numbers of journalists dgaf about OP's 1-5 reasons or nearly any imagined 6-10. There isn't a conspiracy of journalists to keep the masses in the dark.

I was already well-aware of prison work programs for at least a couple of decades, and I'm pretty sure I became aware because of traditional media.

It is possible that I learned of it from NPR/PBS, so not really msm. Maybe The Pretenders was my first encounter with it. Definitely have seen stories of angry white-folk complaining about the lack of non-prison manufacturing of license plates from msm over the years.

It is about as well-hid as one of those things that aren't hidden very well.

Where are the stories implicating GOP for anything besides healthcare? MSM would have you believe Republicans are angels when it comes to Russia. Not just Trump-Russia or 2016Election-Russia, but the rest. Ignoring and/or abetting Russia regarding future election protection, nuclear power plant protection, cyber protection, money laundering protection, Kaspersky lab software (prohibited in the IC) on government computers, the list is long.

It doesn't make sense how right wing media can smear Dems, the DNC, the IC, etc. with fake bull**** all day long, but the rest of the media can't report real stories that hurt the GOP?

It's really strange because Rachel covers almost all of it, but doesn't devote much time to each. The rest of the MSM - radio silence.

So the stories are fresh, important, true, interesting...and neglected. This is just one subject.

This is based on research, which I haven't actually red, coming from http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017.../pers-a02.html. Further from Black Agenda Report...

* wsws.org fell by 67 percent
* alternet.org fell by 63 percent
* globalresearch.ca fell by 62 percent
* consortiumnews.com fell by 47 percent
* socialistworker.org fell by 47 percent
* mediamatters.org fell by 42 percent
* commondreams.org fell by 37 percent
* internationalviewpoint.org fell by 36 percent
* democracynow.org fell by 36 percent
* wikileaks.org fell by 30 percent
* truth-out.org fell by 25 percent
* counterpunch.org fell by 21 percent
* theintercept.com fell by 19 percent

In journalism school they teach you to weigh who it helps and who it hurts in deciding whether to run a story. So, for example, if Mueller asked an outlet to sit on a story because it would damage his investigation, they'd certainly consider it but it'd probably be the toughest decision of their careers by far... Because hurting that investigation is bad for the general public, and helps guilty parties potentially... But holding the story could arguably do more damage to the public if, for example, it kept Trump in office a few extra months and he nuked somebody.

So they'd weigh all those risks. I'm pretty sure they'd hold it in a scenario where Mueller asked, but only for a set period of time, and they'd want some sort of deal for an exclusive interview after it was over or something. Also, they'd have to weigh the risk of being scooped on the story by another outlet that didn't hold it - so part of the agreement might be for Mueller to give them the green light if someone else came to them for comment on the same story.

Generally speaking, as for "too damaging to powerful people," it really depends. Like, would CNN potentially hold a story about Ted Turner? Yeah, absolutely possible. Would ABC hold something damaging to Disney? Yes. The conglomeration of corporate media is horrible for journalism... and that blame goes to the higher levels, IMO, not the journalists - most of whom really do want to chase the truth.

When you start getting into politicians, it gets so complicated. Like I'm sure FOX is holding back dirt on the right all the time... But places we consider non-biased could do it too, for any number of reasons - lawyers shut it down due to the risk involved in getting sued, maybe a journalist doesn't want to derail the career of a source who they've now got dirt on, etc.

Three and four definitely happen a lot too - often it's a battle between journalists and ownership. Here's Sam Zell, owner of the Tribune Company, speaking to his employees about covering puppies over Iraq (warning, f-bomb in this one):



As for the too technical stuff, they'll usually try to dumb it down, but sometimes might leave it out entirely - especially wonky stuff in politics.