Nothing is irrelevant, remember?

You are clearly confused between oppression and suppression.

To oppress means to keep (someone) down by unjust force or authority. To repress is (1) to hold back, or (2) to put down by force. Suppress, which is broader and more common than the other two, means (1) to put an end to, (2) to inhibit, and (3) to keep from being revealed.

In the case being discussed the details were suppressed by multiple institutions and organisations due to either fear of consequences or political ideology. Being a coward (in the former example) or subscribing to a set of believes (in the latter), are both choices (voluntary) but clearly involved suppression.

Leftist arguments never stand up to scrutiny.

Edited by W12 (11 Jun 2019 12.48pm)

I am neither leftish nor the least bit confused.

Nothing whatsover that you write has any connection to the point I made. Nothing!

So it seems that you are the one who is confused.

To repeat for the umpteenth time I have no idea if the media "suppressed information" or were "oppressed" or any other epithet you wish to use. Nor have I expressed any opinion on it's desirability, or not, if they were in these exchanges because it's NOT the issue. The issue is only whether, should that have happened, press freedom would have been impinged and NOTHING else.

Why it takes so many posts for such a simple point to be understood beats me, but that's not my fault. I could hardly have been clearer.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

OK then yes, the press have complete freedom to suppress information.

Unless you want state control over the press then yes.

That's what freedom means. To publish, or not publish being their decision alone.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

That used to work when the press themselves were more representative of the people they are supposed to represent (and when the country was more homogeneous). Now the BBC, Sky, Channel 4, ITV news (all the major broadcasters) follow the same political ideals (otherwise you couldn't get a job in the first place) and follow the same script (even in fictional shows).

i.e.

Orange man bad (and racist, sexist, etc)
All Migration good (and saying otherwise is racist)
Minorities cannot be criticized (that's racist)
Do not promote traditional family values (that's homophobic, transphobic, sexist etc)
Call the working class "right wing" to shut them up (they are all racists anyway)
Ignore actual crime figures (because if you look too close you might find conclusions you don't like)
Ignore terrorism (it's our fault anyway and you also might find conclusions you don't like)

[all the above in short form soundbite format]

Now they are moving on to sexualizing children and promoting racism against white people (even on the BBC, so we are paying for it). What's next I wonder?

In short the mainstream media operates for the left wing middle classes and minorities in the population. People who are still young enough are finding better alternatives online (typically long form and far more intelligent and diverse debate) and the mainstream media is in it's death throws.