Every year for the Valley Scene I compile a list and description of what I see as the top-10 stories most censored by mainstream media in the previous year. The major criticism I have received of these columns over the years is that in them I am using an inappropriate definition of "censorship." The critics are thinking of censorship in its most narrow, legal sense of government prior restraint of a communicator's message; that is, the suppression of a message before it is published, broadcast, or sent via another medium. For example, when the Nixon Administration blocked the publication (at least initially) of the Pentagon Papers in 1969, that was a classic form of government censorship. (The great George Bernard Shaw once said that "assassination in the most extreme form of censorship." Can't argue with that!).
Government prior restraint--i.e. the classic form of censorship, still occurs but is rare even post 9/11. Yet we would be naive to think that the absence of formal government censorship means that real censorship does not take place every day in the United States.
In 1976 professor Carl Jensen of Sonoma State University founded Project Censored. For 30 years the Project has produced an "annual list of 25 news stories of social significance that have been overlooked, under-reported or self-censored by the country's major national news media." Jensen, who retired from Sonoma State in 1996, in a 1989 article provided a definition of censorship:
To me, the definition of the term goes beyond the traditional examples of the military censor deleting classified information from documents or the acts of the bookburning barbarians. I define censorship as the suppression of information whether purposeful or not, by any method - including bias, omission, under-reporting, and self-censorship - which results in the systematic omission of information, thereby preventing the public from fully knowing what is happening to its society.
Blogs, much to the chagrin of the mainstream media establishment, have made censorship as Jensen describes it much more difficult to maintain. That's a topic worthy of a longer discussion that I do not have time to get into right now.
With that context, here's Censored in 2005, Part II.
P.S. A few years ago I wrote a review of Larry Soley's Censorship, Inc., a work that explores in great detail the nature of corporate censorship in America. The review can be found here.
4 comments:
Tony Palmeri - the only "commentator" I know who can spend six paragraphs saying nothing before linking to what he really meant to say.
Well thank you for providing an example of how to say nothing in one sentence!
I think what anonymous wanted to say was "duh?"
Actually what you said was quite interesting and pertinent to the last post and it's comments. Too bad you don't have more time to develop the thread, etc. The idea in your post I resonate most strongly with is the self-censorship issue.
I am always fascinated by the prevalence of self-censorship in community groups. In fact, it seems that a person's ability to continually self-monitor and successfully adjust their "persona" to meet the perceived needs of the group is directly proportional to both social success and higher income levels, or if you prefer - membership in the Chamber of Commerce. This might seem like a no-brainer except for the prevailing cultural fallacies which seem to be various permutations of the Self-Made Man concept and notions of acheivement through hard work or skill. And yet the continual parade of mediocrity and ethical inversion among leaders and managers certainly shows this to be a lie of major proportions.
Why we continue to indoctrinate our children into this fantasy while simultaneously omitting any mention of some of the most powerful methods of class selection is beyond me. Your parents train you in this (self-perpetuating class behavior), you pick it up on your own (public schools) or you are screwed.
But I think the cost of this self-monitoring and self-censorship is incredibly high and terribly destructive. This quote below is from a description of a book ('Beyond Groupthink' if anyone's interested) but I think it gets at the general point -
'Strategic issues and crises in foreign policy are usually managed by relatively small groups of elite policymakers and their closest advisors. Since the pioneering work of Irving Janis in the early 1970s, we have known that the interplay between the members of these groups can have a profound and, indeed, at times a pernicious influence on the content and quality of foreign policy decisions. Janis argued that "groupthink," a term he used to describe a tendency for extreme concurrence-seeking in decision-making groups, was a major cause of a number of U.S. foreign policy fiascoes.'"
...Or stupid city council votes, local newspaper "omissions" and slants, and one of my personal favorites "current best practices" in any discipline. Heck, you might as well just say "I can't think for myself, or creative problem-solve and neither should you".
...a tendency for extreme concurrence-seeking - read that as many times as you need to, people.
Doing the "right thing" in higher circles (even those in small communities) seems always to be behaving with the utmost conformity, rather than making principle-based decisions. Those who attempt to do the latter must be marginalized in order to maintain the existance and cohesion of the controlling group. Group members will sacrifice their own inclinations, intelligence and dignity to accomplish this. So in a way, the harshest self-censorship among the censors is always directed at the guy in the mirror and the personal cost must be high. Unfortunately the rest of us are forced to live with the consequenses of this complete lack of sack.
Oh yeah -
In order to be respectful of the culturally diverse readership you attract, I will now translate what I just said for Anonymous
"hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm"
or, if that's still too long - "nothing"
Wow Jody, 8 paragraphs of nothing! Congratulations!
In all seriousness, I want to comment on the "Groupthink" point. In my academic field (Communication Studies), Janis' Groupthink thesis is taught quite extensively. Not surprising, since the idea that bad policies get put in place in government or business because people "in the know" opt to remain silent makes good intuitive sense. Scores of consultants have made tons of cash going into corporations and teaching the suits how to be careful of Groupthink.
I've never had the chance to write up an in-depth critique of the Groupthink thesis, and I'll only sketch a critique here. (It's got enough Nothing in it so that I'll bet anonymous is glued to her monitor).
Janis and others used as a main piece of support for the Groupthink thesis the experience of the John F. Kennedy administration during the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. The invasion was a disaster featuring Rumsfeldian levels of arrogance and incompetence, an attempt to overthrow Castro that was so completely disatrous that if anything it solidified Fidel's reputation for a generation in Cuba and in Latin America generally as the ultimate thorn in the Gringo's side.
Janis and others found that within JFK's inner circle of advisors existed much opposition to going ahead with the invasion. But rather than express their opposition, they self-censored themselves so as not to "rock the boat" and prevent the group from reaching a decision favorable to the Boss (in this case Kennedy).
The Bay of Pigs invasion was probably a low point in the history of American sea vessels, so I guess it's appropriate that Janis completely missed the boat in his analysis.
Consider this: When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, I'm quite sure there were some members of the Politburo who thought it was a bad idea; i.e. they thought the Soviets weren't prepared to fight a guerrilla war, didn't understand Islamic culture, etc. But instead of stating those concerns and possibly upsetting Brezhnev (or whovever was in power that year), they remained silent and the invasion turned out to be a disaster for the Soviets. Thus we have a case of Soviet Groupthink.
But consider this: isn't the troubling part of the Soviet example the fact that not one member of the Politburo objected to the invasion of Afghanistan on MORAL grounds? The opposition was based on sheer pragmatic considerations; e.g. we may not have the forces necessary, don't understand Islam, etc. IF THERE WAS A MEMBER OF THE POLITBURO MORALLY OPPOSED TO INVADING OTHER COUNTRIES, THEN HE WOULD NOT BE IN THE POLITBURO IN THE FIRST PLACE. For the Politburo to take Janis' advice and learn to avoid groupthink would only mean a more robust discussion of the best ways to kill and occupy the Afghans.
The same was true with JFK and the Bay of Pigs invasion. None of the self-censorsing advisors were morally opposed to invasion and occupation. In fact, many of them have spoken and written about how the invasion could have been carried off successfully. As with the Politburo, a person morally opposed to invasion would not have been in Kennedy's inner circle to begin with.
Avoidance of groupthink in the Bay of Pigs example would not have meant that the invasion would not have taken place. Rather, it would have taken place at a later time after all the pragmatic issues were taken care of.
Much ado about . . . nothing? --TP
Post a Comment