3 ms·

>In the US or UK media orgs generally has very little to fear in terms of actual punishment, but they do have to make a very real calculus over whether they're

>In the US or UK media orgs generally has very little to fear in terms of actual punishment, but they do have to make a very real calculus over whether they're serving the public interest. not true. media organizations that do not report in accordance with and to the governments favour may lose preferential access to press conferences as retaliation. their parent companies, viacom, CBS, and Warner for example, may lose the cooperation of the government on their next latest action film which may deny them access to state parks or military equipment and bases for filming and props. When you publish something the government doesnt like, they can also just straight up seize your profits from that material as well. https://www.businessinsider.com/us-government-can-seize-profits-edward-snowden-book-2019-12?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/us-government-can-seize-prof... television news in the united states is under no objective requirement to serve the public interest in the 21st century. the news was originally provided as part of a service to the mandate from the FCC that license holders contribute to the public good, but modern news is partisan, divisive, appeals extensively to emotion, and uses manipulative scare tactics to drive viewership and ratings with a combination of conjecture and talk shows.

Retric 4y ago
Your link is about contract law. The suit says Snowden had a contract to do X, news agencies don’t have such contracts. What the article doesn’t make clear is a publishing company could keep their profits from the book, the government only has a case for Snowden.
tootie 4y ago
I didn't say "television news" I said "reputable media". And no, none of them have any legal obligation whatsoever to do anything really (aside from slander/libel). What they do and don't publish is weighed against their mission and their reputation. If the mission is "spread outrage and generate ad revenue" they'll publish whatever sounds sexy. I (full disclosure) work for a non-profit newsroom that has a genuine mission to serve public interest and if we were ever perceived not to be, we'd be abandoned by our donors and disappear. But even orgs that have genuine principles guiding them can still make mistakes.
- Kranar 4y ago
  You never said "reputable media" you said "news organizations". Specifically you said that news organizations have some kind of real calculus about the public interest when deciding whether to publish a story and what OP is saying is that said calculus is fairly superficial compared to the very real calculus of losing out on profits due to lack of access.
  - hourago 4y ago
    > what OP is saying is that said calculus is fairly superficial compared to the very real calculus of losing out on profits due to lack of access. The readers are an important part of that calculus. How would your readers react when they know that information have been hidden? Some newspapers have readers that will feel betrayed and lose interest in the news outlet, others have more sectarian readers that do not care about such high quality news as long as it follows some ideological line. Lack of access is important, but readers are way more important.
    - Kranar 4y ago
      Yes, paying customers and advertisers are a very important part of that calculus, I agree. We know from the work done by Soley and Craig [1] that newspapers will refrain from publishing unflattering stories that could jeopardize major sponsorships. None of this changes the principle argument that the driving calculus for major news organizations is profit driven instead of driven by public interest. [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/20460787 https://www.jstor.org/stable/20460787

Retric 4y ago

Your link is about contract law. The suit says Snowden had a contract to do X, news agencies don’t have such contracts. What the article doesn’t make clear is a publishing company could keep their profits from the book, the government only has a case for Snowden.

tootie 4y ago

I didn't say "television news" I said "reputable media". And no, none of them have any legal obligation whatsoever to do anything really (aside from slander/libel). What they do and don't publish is weighed against their mission and their reputation. If the mission is "spread outrage and generate ad revenue" they'll publish whatever sounds sexy. I (full disclosure) work for a non-profit newsroom that has a genuine mission to serve public interest and if we were ever perceived not to be, we'd be abandoned by our donors and disappear. But even orgs that have genuine principles guiding them can still make mistakes.

Kranar 4y ago
You never said "reputable media" you said "news organizations". Specifically you said that news organizations have some kind of real calculus about the public interest when deciding whether to publish a story and what OP is saying is that said calculus is fairly superficial compared to the very real calculus of losing out on profits due to lack of access.
- hourago 4y ago
  > what OP is saying is that said calculus is fairly superficial compared to the very real calculus of losing out on profits due to lack of access. The readers are an important part of that calculus. How would your readers react when they know that information have been hidden? Some newspapers have readers that will feel betrayed and lose interest in the news outlet, others have more sectarian readers that do not care about such high quality news as long as it follows some ideological line. Lack of access is important, but readers are way more important.
  - Kranar 4y ago
    Yes, paying customers and advertisers are a very important part of that calculus, I agree. We know from the work done by Soley and Craig [1] that newspapers will refrain from publishing unflattering stories that could jeopardize major sponsorships. None of this changes the principle argument that the driving calculus for major news organizations is profit driven instead of driven by public interest. [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/20460787 https://www.jstor.org/stable/20460787