COVIDs ir tikai tas, kam tu pievērsi uzmanību; korporatīvā cenzūra faktiski ir kaut kas tāds, kas notiek visu laiku. Un, izskatās, ka ar to nav atrasti efektīvi līdzekļi, kā cīnīties, jo to ir teju neiespējami pieķert un -- pats galvenais -- tā ir vnk efektīva biznesa prakse. Citiem vārdiem sakot, pa šiem pārsimt gadiem privātā īpašumā esošu masu mēdiju, tā ir izkristalizējusies kā situācija, lai šie masu mēdiji varētu palikt pie dzīvības.

Croteau and Hoynes[7] discuss corporate censorship in the news publishing business, observing that it can occur as self-censorship. They note that it is "virtually impossible to document", because it is covert. Jonathan Alter states that "In a tight job market, the tendency is to avoid getting yourself or your boss in trouble. So an adjective gets dropped, a story skipped, a punch pulled … It's like that Sherlock Holmes story – the dog that didn't bark.[8] Those clues are hard to find." The head of the Media Access Project notes that such self-censorship is not misreporting or false reporting, but simply not reporting at all. Self-censorship is not the product of "dramatic conspiracies", according to Croteau and Hoynes, but simply the interaction of many small daily decisions. Journalists want to keep their jobs and editors support the interests of the company. These many small actions and non-actions accumulate to produce (in their words) "homogenized, corporate-friendly media".
[...]
They state that "even among journalists who entered the field for the noblest of reasons" there is a tendency to avoid any controversial journalism that might embroil the news company in a battle with a powerful corporation or a government agency. They observe that although such conflicts "have always been the stuff of great journalism" they are "very bad business", and that "in the current climate business trumps journalism just about every time".

Croteau and Hoynes[7] report that such corporate censorship in journalism is commonplace, reporting the results of studies revealing that more than 40%[10] of journalists and news executives stating that they had deliberately engaged in such censorship by avoiding newsworthy stories or softening the tones of stories. More than a third of the respondents stated that news organizations would ignore news that might hurt their financial interests. A similar fraction stated that they self-censored in order to further, or not endanger, their careers.

// https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship