I think that’s likely true as regards their stance on the potential legal ramifications - but it seems less relevant to the claim Vera made which was that these outlets “know it when they see it” sort of thing.
I disagree and think that it’s merely a game of massaging the arbitrary rules. The actual concepts don’t hold water though

I wasn't talking about rules. I was talking about common sense.

Then my original comment stands.
Absolutely nothing to think there's anything reasonable about that claim.

"common sense" has nothing to do with publishing articles.

We might wonder whether common sense is a call for the individual to use his sense of ethics to ascertain the right thing to do, or a call to submit to the rules of modern moralism, born into this world less than 20 years ago.

"common sense" has nothing to do with publishing articles. — AmadeusD

That's the saddest thing I've read all week!
It's official: we can add post-reason to post-truth in the designation of our era.

Well, that explains you, I guess.

I suppose it does. Civilization may not be worth saving, but I believe reason is --- was --- would have been --- whatever the correct tense is now. Yes, the loss of rational thought applied to decisions does make me profoundly sad.

I don't think decisions about what articles to publish have anything to do with day-to-day practical sense and navigation. It seems specifically outside of the group of activities to which 'common sense' could apply.
I think you're lamenting something that both never existed, and isn't something particularly desirable. This, in light of what I think Lionino hit and is right about:

a call to submit to the rules of modern moralism — Lionino

Seems to be the 'common sense' you're driving at, and happen to align with. I would say, with most liberal thinkers, that stymying publication based on 'common sense' is a risible idea, and a tragedy in practice.

I don't think decisions about what articles to publish have anything to do with day-to-day practical sense and navigation. — AmadeusD

Really? If you were the managing editor of a widely circulated news outlet, would you never ask:
If I print the address of a material witness in a murder trial, will that person be in danger as a result? If I print the salient details of the police investigation, will the integrity of the trial be compromised? If I print the opinions of a popular public figure who believes the accused is guilty, will the trail be fair? If the trial was fair and a dangerous criminal was convicted, is it wise to publish the names of the jurors? Is it reasonable to publish the location of the schools that criminal's young children attend?

No area of human endeavour is beyond the scope of intelligent reasoning.
I said no endeavour, not no hum. Evidently, some ideological factions are.

If I print the address of a material witness in a murder trial, will that person be in danger as a result? — Vera Mont

That's illegal. Not common sense-related.

If I print the salient details of the police investigation, will the integrity of the trial be compromised? — Vera Mont

Again, illegal. These are regulated standards. Common sense doesn't inform these decisions.

intelligent reasoning. — Vera Mont

is not common sense. You're really not engaging the issue here. Journalism is not something common people do. Common sense doesn't relate.

Okay. It's good to know that all publications always abide by the law and that there is a law on the books to cover every situation in which publishing certain articles, images or commentary could cause someone an injury.

Okay. It's good to know that all publications always abide by the law and that there is a law on the books to cover every situation in which publishing certain articles, images or commentary could cause someone an injury. — Vera Mont

I think you're either being incredibly disingenuous (my preference) or do not understand what journalism, common sense, and "society" are.

Maybe all those and then some.

hehe... and in the face of such a response, I must say - likewise :)