The Israel - Gaza conflict coverage in New York Times and other such caliber journalism sources is heartbreaking beyond imagination.<p>I can’t help but notice the coverage articles does not allow comments. I am curious from a journalist’s perspective how such decisions are made? On the receiving end feels that they disable this because the news outlet may be afraid to unearth 1) how people really feel about this and/or 2) something that is not in alignment with their point of view or agenda.<p>How do news outlets make such calls. What are the factors considered. Who is responsible for making such calls.<p>It would be great if people can shed light on the why behind the actions.
Oddly enough, Vanity Fair had a story on it. <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/10/new-york-times-gaza-hospital-story" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/10/new-york-times-gaza-...</a><p>In the J-school I attended we learned that editorial decisions weigh many factors, but newsworthiness tended to come first. Other things like reliability of sources, liability for libel, etc come next. We were taught to weigh things like "if we report this, will it cause harm to the community, and does the newsworthiness outweigh the potential form harm?" As an example, news outlets largely stopped reporting on suicides, because copycat suicides happen. They don't report the names of certain kinds victims, like minors.<p>At any legit news outlet there will be an editorial board that makes the publication decisions, made up of senior experienced journalists.<p>Most outlets that disable comments did so because of toxic behavior commenters directed at each other, not because the comments were second-guessing editorial decisions.