> Presumably, the world-famous multimedia behemoth willing to assume the risk of getting sued in order to publish newsworthy truth.
So, therefore, smaller companies that can't afford to pay should decline to publish anything that could offend anyone rich and powerful? Was Susan Fowler, for example, in the wrong for publishing the allegations against Uber earlier this year, because she was not "a world-famous multimedia behemoth"?
> Buzzfeed stands to profit a great deal at the expense of R Kelly by publishing such a salacious story.
Evidently most media outlets disagreed with that calculus. That's why this was a story to begin with.
> Celebrity net worth pegs R Kelly at $150 million. A 2015 investment from NBCUniversal put Buzzfeed's valuation at 1.5 billion.
The cost to R. Kelly: Hundreds of millions of opportunity cost. Millions of dollars in legal fees from victims.
The cost to BuzzFeed (or whoever) of declining to take on a story: A million dollars in opportunity cost, tops?
I'm probably hugely overestimating the benefit for BuzzFeed to try to be as fair to your point as possible, and the numbers still don't add up.
> Is this true, though, or is it just the desired narrative? How do we know that the Hogan decision will have made a difference on whether R Kelly decides to sue?
The media sure thinks it does, and that is the problem.
> Media self-censors all the time. Big media companies are incredibly risk-averse.
You've correctly identified the issue here.
> A sob story about a journalist enduring the intense pain of having to shop a story around to several different publications until finally one picked it up, wouldn't be news except that the media companies all want to frame themselves as poor victims of the Hogan decision, which they hate because it means they must be ever so slightly less reckless when destroying the lives of their subjects.
Hold on. R. Kelly is not the victim in this case. If the story is true, the victims are the people R. Kelly abused. It would have been a huge injustice for the story to be self-censored out of existence and for the victims' voices to go unheard! How would you feel about this story if you knew a victim?
We aren't talking about random media vindictiveness. There is a reason why journalists go to so much effort to do this research, often at a personal cost.
So, therefore, smaller companies that can't afford to pay should decline to publish anything that could offend anyone rich and powerful? Was Susan Fowler, for example, in the wrong for publishing the allegations against Uber earlier this year, because she was not "a world-famous multimedia behemoth"?
> Buzzfeed stands to profit a great deal at the expense of R Kelly by publishing such a salacious story.
Evidently most media outlets disagreed with that calculus. That's why this was a story to begin with.
> Celebrity net worth pegs R Kelly at $150 million. A 2015 investment from NBCUniversal put Buzzfeed's valuation at 1.5 billion.
The cost to R. Kelly: Hundreds of millions of opportunity cost. Millions of dollars in legal fees from victims.
The cost to BuzzFeed (or whoever) of declining to take on a story: A million dollars in opportunity cost, tops?
I'm probably hugely overestimating the benefit for BuzzFeed to try to be as fair to your point as possible, and the numbers still don't add up.
> Is this true, though, or is it just the desired narrative? How do we know that the Hogan decision will have made a difference on whether R Kelly decides to sue?
The media sure thinks it does, and that is the problem.
> Media self-censors all the time. Big media companies are incredibly risk-averse.
You've correctly identified the issue here.
> A sob story about a journalist enduring the intense pain of having to shop a story around to several different publications until finally one picked it up, wouldn't be news except that the media companies all want to frame themselves as poor victims of the Hogan decision, which they hate because it means they must be ever so slightly less reckless when destroying the lives of their subjects.
Hold on. R. Kelly is not the victim in this case. If the story is true, the victims are the people R. Kelly abused. It would have been a huge injustice for the story to be self-censored out of existence and for the victims' voices to go unheard! How would you feel about this story if you knew a victim?
We aren't talking about random media vindictiveness. There is a reason why journalists go to so much effort to do this research, often at a personal cost.