Most cultures censor, if necessarily violently (imprisonment, torture, elimination) what journalists may say, while modern
journalism is based on the principles of no censorship. At one level this is obvious, at another, its implications for the
quality of information that comes to us from various parts of the world can get overlooked because censorship is so banal in many places,
and so unacceptable (at least in principle, often in practice) in others. Knowing how to account for the role of censorship (imposed
by outside coercion and self-imposed) on journalistic reports represents a major dimension of the education of a consumer
of free media. To confuse the products of a culture which “manufactures” consent, with one that coerces it, represents,
in many cases, a costly category error.
This is a greatly complicated subject and You explained the point very eloquently and in a pithy example of ways journalists should report.
I think journalism is should never be censored except in regards to children because of the graphic nature and complexities in some programing.
However, it seems to me, there is more irresponisble reporting where there is no censorship. But it should also be considered irresponsible when censorship is rampant because the truth is not told. I think both extremes are equally disgraceful. Ethics are no longer a priority of non-censored media and that is very disturbing. Hateful rhetoric is spread among both sides of the table and the facts are skewed by the perspective being shown. Many people in Europe and other parts of the world have the wrong opinion of the United States because of this rhetoric. And within the United States there are numerous examples of this false rhetoric towards the US being spread by journalists which creates undue turmoil.
I love your site!
That is absolutely true. One, unfortunately, cannot rely on the media as one would hope to. In my experience in living overseas, television reporting frequently offers a very different view of the situation than is the case.