NBC has delayed airing a new documentary about Trump’s child-separation policy, described by MSNBC’s Chris Hayes as “absolutely urgent,” until December, despite its importance for public interest. The reason behind the delay appears to be concerns that airing it earlier could hurt Trump’s feelings, thereby making him unlikely to do an MSNBC debate. This decision has been criticized as prioritizing Trump’s sensitivities over informing the public on a significant and painful policy issue.
Headline appears editorialized, there’s nothing in the OG headline or source about Trump’s feelings.
Please restore the original headline or we’ll have to remove it.
p.s. My personal opinion is that it has more to do with accusations of election interference.
Choosing not to release information is election interference itself. That’s intentionally keeping voters uninformed about material facts about a candidate.
I generally agree with your PS, though, I’m not sure I’m thrilled with the idea that independent news organizations should be making decisions based on fears of election interference. Unlike the possible accusations of conflict of interests for government agencies or institutions, the role of the media (ostensibly and historically) has been, and continues to be, to ensure transparency, accountability, and public participation in governance.
“Interfering” with elections through informational reporting seems to be a primary role of the news. Though, perhaps the fact that’s it’s a documentary changes the calculus. In some sense, this seems to be more fundamentally about the interests of the ownership of MSNBC and fears of retribution if it’s released prior to the election, but I don’t think Trump is going to be particularly discerning in his retribution one way or the other.
Oh, yeah, definitely, and if it were simply a matter of transparency, I’d agree.
The problem is Trump brands news agencies “the enemy” and when he does that, his fanbase starts issuing death threats.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/437610-trump-calls-press-the-enemy-of-the-people/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/04/trump-interview-nabj-abc-host
Yeah, he really does have a sort of stochastic-terror network at his disposal, which is terrifying. Someone I know in my red/blue-split city – smart and wise, kind, experience leading organizations, experience working with the city, and with good ideas for how to improve things like education and parks – told me they won’t run for any office, which they originally had considered, because, and I quote, “I have kids. I can’t risk being killed for trying to improve this city.”
That was one of the most depressing conversations I’ve had in a while.
Their unequal treatment of Dem and GOP just proves they are no longer a news organization, just a propaganda machine.
Their unequal treatment of Dem and GOP just proves they are no longer a news organization, just a propaganda machine.
It doesn’t prove that at all, and frankly it’s not true. They are part of a for-profit corporation. Their decisions are based on making money for shareholders, and not about journalism or informing the public. So if upsetting Trump, and his supporters, would cost them money, then they will withhold the information. Profit Über alles!
as if this documentary would be the thing that turns people around from the millions of trump scandals that should have sunk him a long time ago
NBC just doesn’t want everyone in the building to get death threats
Apparently, there is no worse election interference than giving the people accurate portrayals of the beliefs and behaviors of the candidates.
Every day it seems like these media companies might only care about their own profits, and the richest people who own the most shares… That are among the 5% of Americans who get tax breaks with Trump’s upcoming policies.
I hope someday they all get thrust back into poverty and the world shits on them as they have shit on the world.
Pathetic. Grow a backbone, NBC.
It’s Oliver Darcy’s reporting based on conversations with multiple individuals at various levels of the corporation. This isn’t something Darcy inferred on their own, they’re reporting out on conversations they’ve had with individuals at the company.
Multiple?
Darcy reported that Rebecca Blumenstein, president of editorial for NBC News, opposed airing “Separated” before the election because executives want Trump to agree to another presidential debate hosted by the network.
However, Stephen Labaton, NBCUniversal head of communications, maintained to Darcy that “the debate had nothing to do with the scheduling of this programming.”
This story is making the rounds on a number of different outlets, and they all depend wholly on this one guy saying that Blumenstein said something, while Labaton said something different to that same guy. There’s a single person as a source here, the story is overstated.
Edit: Oh, I see - the headline on the article doesn’t match the title of this post. “…due to worries it will hurt Trump’s feelings” - was that your editorializing, or did they change the headline?
It’s not exactly difficult to see Darcy’s original article for the full context of the conversations involved—you’ve already pointed out where their reports can be found. In cases like this, it’s not uncommon for the sources to remain unnamed.
Whether you’re not a fan of the reporter, the way the information was gathered, or how it’s presented, that’s beside the point. Individual journalists routinely compile insights from anonymous sources and publish those findings. I doubt you go around copying and pasting your Lemmy posts complaining about every article based on single-author reports with unnamed sources.
I swear something like this happened in 2016
Nah. That was the NYT in 2005.
It’s only appropriate to acknowledge wrong-doing when there’s no way to punish them for it. /s
Salon - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Salon:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
