October 12, 2007
It's not censorship if it's not news
So there's this list of the top-25 news stories complied by Project Censored purporting to be the biggest stories that never received the attention of the media. The more you read it, the more breathless and conspiracy mongering it gets, especially towards the bottom of the list.
Many of these stories have actually received media attention. The #1 story on the list is the revocation of habeas corpus in the Military Commissions Act. Umm... The #2 story on amendments to Posse Comitatus? Here. #3 on AFRICOM? Yep. I could keep going, but I have better things to do.
Any activity which discourages the dissemination of information is not automatically censorship. There are plenty of good reasons for not publishing something that have nothing to do with censorship. I'm doing research into historical censorship, and I'm finding that outside 20th-century totalitarian regimes, censorship really isn't as big of a deal as people think. There's "censorship" and then there's censorship. Deciding not to print something because it would either piss people off or not attract sufficient attention to be profitable isn't censorship, it's journalistic and editorial discretion. Being prevented from printing something because it violates governmental will is censorship. The mere fact that such a list can be compiled indicates that what's going on here isn't censorship: if it was, the list couldn't have been published.
Let's be honest. Project Censorship isn't about compiling stories that have been censored, it's about compiling stories that lefties think are important and damaging to Republicans. And it's so much more exciting if you can convince yourself that they really are out to get you.
It's important to make that distinction between censorship and "editorial discretion." Nonetheless, it is difficult to imagine that the US federal government does not at least influence (to some degree) the types and nature of stories that the so-called "mainstream media" publishes. All official media outlets are licensed by the FCC. It regulates the airwaves, and as such controls what is and is not said on the air. It may not be outright censorship, but there is a perverse incentive to toe the government line.
Posted by: Ben at October 15, 2007 4:55 PMIf we were talking about obscenity, I'd agree entirely. But show me one example of anyone getting fined for running politically injudicious stories that were otherwise legal to run and I'll eat my hat (note: 1) not owning a hat, this is entirely hypothetical consideration; 2) stories that violate confidentiality or national security policies are usually illegal, and thus don't count).
What you do see a lot of is people deciding not to run stories for reasons having to do with nepotism, e.g. not pissing off the person who will potentially be evaluating you for a job somewhere down the line. This isn't censorship either, it's just a more-or-less unavoidable form of corruption.
I'm not going to argue that any reason for important stories not making it to press is likely to be a good reason, but it is important to recognize the difference between censorship and other forms of press "restrictions".
Posted by: ryan at October 15, 2007 5:42 PM