Shield: protect from criticism, media attention

[Xavier da Silva]

Hello everyone,

Does the verb "shield" meaning "protect from criticism, media attention, etc" sound natural/correct in the examples I made below?

a. President Michel Temer is shielded by a large part of the Brazilian media, i.e., in spite of all the corruption his administration is involved in, the media chooses not to report it, or reports very little, as a way of shielding him. TV Globo, the main TV channel in Brazil, attacks other politicians to distract attention.
b. A very influential man was involved in a fight with a police officer in public, and he (the influential man) bribed the local media to shield himself.

Thank you in advance!

 

[Packard]

You are shielded due to an intervening factor.

The Prince of Wales might be shielded from ugly publicity due to the intervening factor that he is part of the Royal Family.

But the newspapers and media companies are not doing the shielding, they are being shielded against.

Think of a battle between warriors with swords and shields.

The shield protects the warrior from his adversaries. The shield belongs to the person being protected. It is not part of the adversary's armament.

So the media companies would not shield some one. Some intervening factor would do the shielding.

 

[Xavier da Silva]

Thank you very much.

What would you suggest in my O.P to express the idea? Could I use protect?

President Michel Temer is protected by a large part of the Brazilian media, i.e., in spite of all the corruption his administration is involved in, the media chooses not to report it, or reports very little, as a way of protecting him

Thank you in advance!

 

[kentix]

I think I have to disagree with Packard. I think the media is fully capable of shielding people they like, in just the way you mentioned. It may be a more indirect shield than he's referring to, but it's still a figurative shield.

The shield protects the warrior from his adversaries. The shield belongs to the person being protected. It is not part of the adversary's armament.

People shield other people from danger all the time (physically with their bodies, socially with their influence) so the shield can belong to someone other than the person in danger.

But the newspapers and media companies are not doing the shielding, they are being shielded against.

You're making the assumption that the media are by definition in opposition to the president. That's not true in many countries. In many countries the press is very compliant, even complicit. I think that's the point Xavier is arguing.

Back to you, Xavier. You don't need "shield" twice in the same sentence. That's bad style. The second one would sound much better changed to "protecting".

And the second sentence sounds incomplete.

...attacks other politicians to distract attention from Temer.

That's way less vague and reinforces the point you're trying to make.

 

[Packard]

In the USA we call celebrities who get bad publicity but it does not affect them (stick) as being "teflon", most especially a New York mobster who went under the name of "The Teflon Don".

If fear is the reason that he is shielded, then, "The media, fearing retribution from political sources, shy away from criticizing President Temer."

But what is the real reason that the media does not attack Temer? Do they agree with him? Fear him? What?

 

[Packard]

[...] In many countries the press is very compliant, even complicit. I think that's the point Xavier is arguing.

Back to you, Xavier. [...]

I would expect him to shield himself from his adversaries. He would not use a shield to protect himself from his allies.

So they are not shielding him; they are simply complicit. I see that as a different concept.

 

[Xavier da Silva]

Thank you all very much.

But what is the real reason that the media does not attack Temer? Do they agree with him? Fear him? What?

Brazilian media is monopolized by a small group of people (actually four owners of TV channels): Globo, SBT, Folha and Veja. These are the 4 most influential owners and they have the power to manipulate public opinion by reporting and NOT reporting things (facts) as they please. But they have a week point: They depend on public money to survive, as the money from private advertising is not enough to keep these four media companies going.

So, they (TV channels) "blackmail" politicians (Temer, in my O.P) so that public money is given to them, in various forms (contracts, etc).

Here in Brazil, there is a saying, "After you get elected, you have to make a pact with the media or they might destroy you.''

In exchange for the public money, you have a positive media coverage about you.

 

[Packard]

One of the key tenets of ethical journalism is that the advertising department be fully isolated from the editorial department. In that way financial matters have no influence on the editorial policy.

But, no doubt when the media companies are financially hurting the major advertisers have much more influence than they did in the 1960s when newspapers were more affluent.

 

[kentix]

The media companies are shielding him from due scrutiny. I think it's pretty clear. They occupy the space where that activity should take place and they are using their weight to prevent it. And if they are doing that because he's paying them off then it wouldn't be much of a stretch to say the one who is being protected is the one who owns the shield.

 

[kentix]

About your second sentence, I think it would make more sense with more words.

b. A very influential man was involved in a fight with a police officer in public, and he bribed the local media to hold back on their coverage in order to shield himself from public scrutiny.

 

[Xavier da Silva]

Thank you very much.