Who said they had complete freedom of the press on US matters? Individuals have a right to that total freedom, whether they choose to exercise that right it totally up to them. US news stations regularly "hold back" on things to appease the US government, choose not to exercise their total freedom. Why should we expect them to treat China's government any differently?
There is a difference between government censorship and a corporation acting in its own best interests. The Chinese government never told them to drop the story, just as the US government never tells people to drop stories. News corporations know that they must maintain good relations if they want future access. Sometimes that means holding back on things they know would anger a government. Profit means striking a balance between giving the viewers what they want today, and making sure you will be able to give them that tomorrow.
Look at the US news landscape. Look at the access CNN gets as opposed to Fox. If you want the big interviews with the biggest players you have to remain on good terms with their leadership.
> News corporations know that they must maintain good relations if they want future access. Sometimes that means holding back on things they know would anger a government.
This is pretty much the opposite of what I would expect out of a journalist. What good is all that "access" if you're just publishing approved content? Wasn't the relevant quote was something like "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations."
I can imagine many situations where a journalist would hold back on things (names of underage accused, names of spies, locations of military operations, etc.) in order to a) stay out of prison and b) keep the communication pipelines open with their sources.
"Publish and be damned" will quickly lead to you having no-one willing to speak to you.
(Imagine someone who immediately told everyone any secrets they learnt. How long would people tolerate that?)
Reporters act like reporters but often work for massive publicly-traded media companies (CBS). If you want perfect reporting you have to take profit out of the mix, which in turn brings other problems. Don't trust corporations to be the champions of democracy. That isn't their job. Their job is to make money for their owners and we shouldn't criticize them for doing so.
I used to work in television news (not as a journalist). I remember when the news divisions were not controlled by the other parts of the corporation and were, essentially, an entity unto themselves answering to no one.
EDIT: The downvotes are saying news divisions were not so? If that, I think some people need to take a few minutes to learn the history.
> Their job is to make money for their owners and we shouldn't criticize them for doing so
I've seen this argument before used to defend oil companies and the like. Or a company for not paying taxes. Or lobbying to change the laws. "They're just performing their fiduciary responsibility their shareholders!"
I disagree entirely. The existence of capitalism doesn't give people or companies a free morality pass.
There is a difference between government censorship and a corporation acting in its own best interests. The Chinese government never told them to drop the story, just as the US government never tells people to drop stories. News corporations know that they must maintain good relations if they want future access. Sometimes that means holding back on things they know would anger a government. Profit means striking a balance between giving the viewers what they want today, and making sure you will be able to give them that tomorrow.
Look at the US news landscape. Look at the access CNN gets as opposed to Fox. If you want the big interviews with the biggest players you have to remain on good terms with their leadership.