A notable case was the unraveling of the whole Iraq WMD story, and especially the yellowcake affair. I suspect that this was notable precisely because well-informed Americans could see BBC et al covering it via the internet while the US media largely ignored it, though; pre-internet cases of media self-censorship would have been far less visible.
In an environment where the Guardian, Daily Mail and various other foreign papers have massive US market penetration via the internet, this sort of thing is probably way less useful; media self-censorship will only be useful for the section of the population who get their news solely from TV (or where the entire global media colludes to censor something, but that seems far less likely).
This was major news in the US in my recollection. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/what-i-didn-t-fin... is about the yellowcake.
A pro-war pundit then outed Wilson’s spouse as a CIA employee and there was a widely publicized special counsel investigation into the matter of the outing that was discussed a lot at the time.
So I don’t really understand the idea that the US media as a whole was self-censoring this...
It's a cute little "conspiracy theory" for the masses to play with, nobody in power is threatened in the slightest. In many ways it's self-neutered by turning that phrase into a mindless meme.
The soft censorship means we've seen effectively zero mainstream investigation into any of the glaringly obvious questions.
No need to censor any truth anymore, if it simply does not reach anyone because it is burried in a huge pile of garbage information, most people have not the time sorting it through.any
Discussions isn't the point though. Articles in big newspapers and TV stations, not forum chitchat.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/israel-white-house...
i know what you're talking about tho. pretty much, this means the topic is well discussed and not subject to censorship.