Advocates say Washington Gas, a WUSA9 sponsor, pressured the station to take down the stories. "News is absolutely being suppressed," one advocate said.
This is just part of the whole freedom of the press thing I have been talking about in my podcasts this year. U.S. media is under assault by the corporations and now, Trump. So, they are capitulating all over the place. If you really want to know what is going on, you have to read independent news media like Heated, or overseas news media not controlled by the EU or U.K.
I have an isolated internet network I designed myself that is not subject to censorship or restrictions. I also use resources like my web site domain and hosting servers that are located overseas to avoid U.S. censorship. My RSS feeder is from another international company so overseas media like RT News doesn't get blocked.
This is the only way we can stay out of sight of the shadow banning and site restrictions that the U.S. and European corporate censors are imposing on people everywhere. Subscribe to independent news feeds on platforms like Substack, where the news isn't made to disappear.
I can do a lot more because I am a retired IT network engineer but for regular people, just know that big brother is watching nearly everything you do online and choking out what they don't want you to know, or only allowing you to see what they want you to see.
This article about the gas company is just one example of many happening across the country right now.
Thanks for this great coverage. We had no idea before reading this.
It might be helpful to have a description or example example of reporting in the public interest, which is independent of corporate sponsors. I mean besides Substack!
The actions of the editors/owners really piss me off. I can just see this going on all over the lamestream media forever now to avoid reprisals from the administration, advertisers, etc. More "both-sides-ism," despite clear, unequivocal evidence. Not like it's never happened but I though maybe we were moving a little bit forward.
I think I've written comments here that I expect lies, misdirection, disinformation, etc., from FF corporations and affiliated politicos, and fellow travelers. But when journalistic enterprises knuckle under to it, or just accept it, that pisses me off. It's not as if the FF folks don't have enough megaphones already.
Our local gas utility has changed to cost pricing. Meaning even if we don't use any gas it still cost us $60 Canadian per month for being connected to the gas line. They definitely want to get their money out of us.
Maybe this is just me being uninformed of how journalism works, but it seems like basically the editors threw their reporters under the bus for their story with the editor's note?
"Editor's Note: This story, originally published on Nov. 21, has been updated to include additional research and sources regarding the safety of gas stoves."
The editors couldn't have been more ambiguous if they tried. Why not simply say "we updated with a comment from Washington Gas", if they don't want to literally say we got pushback from them?
The image of the newsroom editor in my head, from tv and movies though, is the no nonsense guy demanding their reporters report the truth, and not some sort of trying to please all sides pleaser.
Like even though advertiser pressure is an obvious problem in reporting like this, why can't the editors show some backbone?
I know you mention how HEATED isn't connected to advertisers, but even if it was also funded by advertisers, I would still support you because I have no worries your reporting wouldn't be just as awesome and free of influence, because I think that is who you are as a person.
I'm trying to say I don't get the idea that reporting seemingly needs to be compromised the second an advertiser steps into the picture.
Oh and I found this from our incoming VP on gas stoves too. So that's cool
The editors absolutely threw their reporters under the bus for this one. Honestly the editors note should read: "This story was taken down for 6 days to await comment from Washington Gas, a WUSA9 advertiser." The fact that the note reads like the story was up for the whole time is a grotesque breach of journalistic ethics.
Good question, I used newsroom leadership as an umbrella term to reference editors OR lead producers OR c-suite executives, given that I have no idea who actually made the call.
I bet this is only one example of many areas beyond climate news where this happens. Thank you for exposing this instance! 🦃
This is just part of the whole freedom of the press thing I have been talking about in my podcasts this year. U.S. media is under assault by the corporations and now, Trump. So, they are capitulating all over the place. If you really want to know what is going on, you have to read independent news media like Heated, or overseas news media not controlled by the EU or U.K.
I have an isolated internet network I designed myself that is not subject to censorship or restrictions. I also use resources like my web site domain and hosting servers that are located overseas to avoid U.S. censorship. My RSS feeder is from another international company so overseas media like RT News doesn't get blocked.
This is the only way we can stay out of sight of the shadow banning and site restrictions that the U.S. and European corporate censors are imposing on people everywhere. Subscribe to independent news feeds on platforms like Substack, where the news isn't made to disappear.
I can do a lot more because I am a retired IT network engineer but for regular people, just know that big brother is watching nearly everything you do online and choking out what they don't want you to know, or only allowing you to see what they want you to see.
This article about the gas company is just one example of many happening across the country right now.
Thanks for this great coverage. We had no idea before reading this.
It might be helpful to have a description or example example of reporting in the public interest, which is independent of corporate sponsors. I mean besides Substack!
Has it been done? Can we hear more more about it?
Thank you so so much again.
Weasels. Or, as my army vet brother prefers; minks. Did they presume to remain undetected? So, foolish minks.
The actions of the editors/owners really piss me off. I can just see this going on all over the lamestream media forever now to avoid reprisals from the administration, advertisers, etc. More "both-sides-ism," despite clear, unequivocal evidence. Not like it's never happened but I though maybe we were moving a little bit forward.
I think I've written comments here that I expect lies, misdirection, disinformation, etc., from FF corporations and affiliated politicos, and fellow travelers. But when journalistic enterprises knuckle under to it, or just accept it, that pisses me off. It's not as if the FF folks don't have enough megaphones already.
Perhaps it would be more fitting to use the utility’s full name, “Washington Gas Light,” considering that gaslighting is the industry’s SOP.
Our local gas utility has changed to cost pricing. Meaning even if we don't use any gas it still cost us $60 Canadian per month for being connected to the gas line. They definitely want to get their money out of us.
Maybe this is just me being uninformed of how journalism works, but it seems like basically the editors threw their reporters under the bus for their story with the editor's note?
"Editor's Note: This story, originally published on Nov. 21, has been updated to include additional research and sources regarding the safety of gas stoves."
The editors couldn't have been more ambiguous if they tried. Why not simply say "we updated with a comment from Washington Gas", if they don't want to literally say we got pushback from them?
The image of the newsroom editor in my head, from tv and movies though, is the no nonsense guy demanding their reporters report the truth, and not some sort of trying to please all sides pleaser.
Like even though advertiser pressure is an obvious problem in reporting like this, why can't the editors show some backbone?
I know you mention how HEATED isn't connected to advertisers, but even if it was also funded by advertisers, I would still support you because I have no worries your reporting wouldn't be just as awesome and free of influence, because I think that is who you are as a person.
I'm trying to say I don't get the idea that reporting seemingly needs to be compromised the second an advertiser steps into the picture.
Oh and I found this from our incoming VP on gas stoves too. So that's cool
https://www.vance.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/sen-vance-letter-to-commissioner-trumka.pdf
Anyways have a great Thanksgiving!
The editors absolutely threw their reporters under the bus for this one. Honestly the editors note should read: "This story was taken down for 6 days to await comment from Washington Gas, a WUSA9 advertiser." The fact that the note reads like the story was up for the whole time is a grotesque breach of journalistic ethics.
Sorry one more question if you don't mind.
Are editors generally synonymous with newsroom leadership or is there another layer of management there?
Good question, I used newsroom leadership as an umbrella term to reference editors OR lead producers OR c-suite executives, given that I have no idea who actually made the call.
Ok I see
Thank you so much!