[kylebenzle]

The answer is burried, here is the only real reason given:

When MacAskill replied: “The main reason for only a small percentage [being published] was diminishing interest [from the public]...”

This is insane. They have 99% of the leak under lock and key and they say the reason is because no one wants to see it? My guess is its a gag order/request, if they publish they will lose other access or something but why would this Ewen MacAskill, @ewenmacaskill feel comfortable lying so directly?

[krapp]

Remember, the purpose of journalism is to make money - news is a product like any other. A story people aren't as interested in anymore is a story that doesn't make as much revenue.

[throw0101c]

> Remember, the purpose of journalism is to make money - news is a product like any other.

To make money is the purpose of journalism as much as eating or breathing are the purpose of your life, i.e. they are not.

They're just the bare necessity that needs to be done to continue to exist so that you can do more 'important' things (see Maslow hierarchy).

[toyg]

News is actually a loss-leader - either for ads or for influence.

[krapp]

Nevertheless, news is still there to sell ad space. In a captialist system, it can't exist unless someone is making money on it, somehow.

The rationale for choosing not to publish from the Snowden Archive because of lack of interest is an economic one.

[wubrr]

You're ignoring the role of the state and intelligence agencies in shaping the media and what's reported. If you look at any war, conflict, theory about adversaries, etc. - the news in Western (and equivalently any other region) mainstream media is almost always completely aligned with the government positions and the position of the 'intelligence community' (CIA/NSA). So, yeah media/news is strongly driven by profit, but the ability for the organization to exist and continue to make profit is very dependent on having the right political alignment/spin.