This is a hyperbolic take. In countries with military censors, articles are submitted, from the newspaper's offices, to the censor's office for approval before publication. Nothing under this arrangement stops an American colonel from walking into the NYT's offices, dropping a folder at reception, and persuading the NYT to publish the contents of that folder. While it does prevent investigative journalism in the military, which is despicable on its own merits, the fact that it turns newspapers solely into PR outlets is neither new (i.e. as a general phenomenon in American media) nor limited to only the officially sanctioned point of view.
I like your reasoning. There’s nothing stopping a news outlet from publishing anything other than the clearly outlined consequences. In a similar vein there’s nothing stopping anybody from finding out what happens if you swallow a D battery but for some reason none of my friends are doing that
> In a similar vein there’s nothing stopping anybody from finding out what happens if you swallow a D battery but for some reason none of my friends are doing that
Nice caveat, noting that none of your friends are doing that. But plenty of people do really dangerous, stupid shit and upload it to YouTube for the advertising dollars. Because news media is usually ultimately financed by advertising or partisan donors pushing a specific viewpoint, they're incentivized to publish dangerous stuff - but only the kind people want to see, which is why outlets like the New York Times didn't host video clips showing the outright gore from Charlie Kirk getting shot. The democratic value of an independent media rests on editorial discretion finding content that shocks its audience but not its advertisers.
