Advantages of a truly free press
I am opening this blog primarily due to having been censored in another topic. A thoughtful (and possibly thought provoking) short reply to a post (not a flame) was deleted by Draginol, when there were replies that were much less relevant and more abusive above mine left standing. It made me think more generally about how censorship affects things in the real world.
I have watched the dramatic growth of the Internet over the last few years with much interest, and use it daily for both business and pleasure. It is a source of much of the information I absorb - or at least browse; some from reputable sources such as BBC news, and some not so reputable sources, such as blogs.
Blogs are primarily a tool for discussion, rather than broadcast. As you are all aware - what is said in a blog should not be taken as gospel and as such doesn’t need censorship... or does it? Brad obviously feels that it does. If a reply is relevant, but not agreeable - should it be deleted?
The blog in question was about Michael Moore, Bush, and the new F-911 film. What could I have possibly said that required censoring? Hmmm.
We live in a world where information is king. Those with access to the most information, rule. There are those of you who will no doubt argue that it is in fact money which rules the world, but then those who have the information can likely have the money when they so desire.
I am a firm believer in democracy and real freedom of speech and even at this ultra-low level of blogging such censorship is infuriating! Let the people decide!! Give them the information and let them decide for themselves in open discussion what is right and what is wrong... Or are JoeUser users too uneducated to do that? After all, isn’t active discussion what blogging is about?
More generally, here in the UK we have a varied and extensive press. On the tabloid side, its fair to say that a lot of the news is celeb-based nonsense, but it sells papers and pays reporters wages. That’s not to say that it’s all rubbish and only redtops. We have over 40 daily newspapers available in London alone and more magazines than you can shake a stick at. Add to that the hundreds of local newspapers (which actually contain local news), ITN (independent television news) and we appear to have a massive variety of reliable information available to us every day.
Add to that further the BBC - a service that provides a wealth of informational services. We have BBC1, 2, 3, and 4 television channels; 5 different national radio stations; many new digital radio stations, as well as loads of local stations and the World Service. They also provide a truly brilliant website (http://www.bbc.co.uk) that also streams their radio content.
All of the BBC's services are commercial free. Everything is paid for by the people of Britain, by means of a household TV License at the cost of around £80 per year per home, as well as by exporting existing BBC products overseas.
The reason this works so well is that the BBC doesn’t owe anyone anything, other than the people of Britain themselves. There is no way the BBC can be 'bought' or 'bullied'. That said, there are also many people in the UK who think that the way the BBC is funded isn’t really fair on other broadcasters, but there are not many people who would argue that the BBC isn’t something to be proud of. I myself think the unique way in which the BBC is funded is fundamental to the way in which it works. It is the key method in keeping it’s content fair and just.
The press in the US obviously works in a different way. Due to the nature of the American way of life, there is no way people would ever consider paying for something they might not use which benefits other people; after all, even many people here in the UK never watch BBC. They only watch sport and movies on satellite or cable… why should they pay?
As I understand it, the American media is mostly owned by General Electric, NewsCorp, Viacom as well as a handful of others. They are mostly all companies who have large business interests in other industries. In many cases situations may arise which will cause conflicts of interests. How can you believe what you read, when the news is ultimately printed by the same company that is making the news?
If people are denied access to information, then they are surely ultimately worse off, regardless of whether someone with the power or political clout decides that those people may not need or be ready for said information (censoring, not editing).
In the case of the American media, it seems that many of the major players are in a constant position of conflicting interests. Before you say anything, I know, the same can be said for many of the British media companies, but to counter that problem, we do have the advantage of many more media companies from which to select our news from.
My summary is that we shouldn’t take everything for granted. We need to read more and listen more. We need to educate ourselves and shop around for information. Don’t assume that everything you read actually happened, or that everything you didn’t read didn’t happen. If the government tells you something is right, it might be wrong. If the media tell you something is wrong, it might actually be right. If no one says anything, chances are there is still a lot of stuff going down that we don’t hear about and it might be because the powers that be don’t want us to hear about it.
In the case of blogging, the censorship issue is debatable - hence this post - but I would like to open the debate up to be a bit more general.
Q. Who benefits from censorship?
My answer would have to be, "No one".