[WikiEN-l] FWIW: definition of "censorship"

Fri Feb 18 17:55:04 UTC 2005

On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 10:01:34AM -0600, dpbsmith at verizon.net wrote:
> I think the use of the term "self-censorship" muddies the waters. It's NOT 
> the same thing.

And yet the term has been widely used and discussed among authors and in
discussion of the mass media.  Many people clearly do consider
self-censorship a real and troubling phenomenon, and one worth
discussing and doing things about.

Google for "self-censorship" is quite enlightening.  Here's the first
hit, a USA Today column which relates comments by CNN's "top war
corresponmdent, Christiane Amanpour":

http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2003-09-14-media-mix_x.htm

	Said Amanpour: "I think the press was muzzled, and I think the
	press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television
	and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by
	the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it
	did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my
	view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did."

Here, "self-censorship" clearly refers to people's choosing not to speak
frankly because they fear retaliation.  That retaliation doesn't have to
be in the form of official censorship (say, criminal charges) but can be
in the form of refused access, defamation in other media, and so on.  (I
doubt that many journalists want to hear their names mentioned on Bill
O'Reilly's show, for instance.)

The second hit is a National Geographic article describing scientists
who avoid doing research in controversial areas, even when official
rules do not ban the research:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0210_050210_censorship.html

	Such constraints include the threat of social sanction.
	Scientists may stay away from research not because it's illegal,
	but because it breaches an unspoken rule about what is
	appropriate to study and what is not.

Another hit is a 2000 report summary from the Pew Research Center for
the People and the Press, describing self-censorship in journalism.  It
details journalists' avoiding of stories which are "too boring or
complicated" and therefore won't sell newspapers, as well as stories
that "conflict with organizational interests" or "could adversely affect
advertisers", and stories that might damage the journalists' careers.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=39

	Perhaps surprisingly, peer pressure -- fear of embarrassment or
	potential career damage -- is mentioned by about half of all
	journalists as a factor for avoiding newsworthy stories.

On Wikipedia, "self-censorship" could reasonably include choosing not to
speak frankly because one fears "social sanction" such as having one's
work deleted; as well as "retaliation" in the form of flaming or hostile
criticism, others' withdrawal of cooperation or support, or simply
unpleasant association of an editor's name with a particular icky
subject or controversy.

On the Web at large, including Wikipedia, "self-censorship" could
include avoiding certain topics because one wants to avoid being blocked
by censorware, or have one's site considered "pornographic" or "extreme"
or otherwise unpleasantly thought of.

-- 
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>