Is censorship a bad word?

**Please see 2012 Notes below, due to context changes as the years pass.

Americans are constantly harping about our freedom of speech, using censorship as a bad word. Is it? I've been thinking that a little bit of censorship is a very good thing. For instance, I'm a member of the One Million Moms march trying to help clean up our airwaves by writing to sponsors and distributors of programs that are too degrading and disgusting to be on television. Okay, it's censorship. But is it a bad thing? I don't think so. I also have a degree in Psychology and one of the things that people should realize is that copycatting is huge in this country. When a celebrity commits suicide, or is reported to commit suicide, a lot of young people who idolize that celebrity copycat, shocking and devasting family members who had no clue why their loved one would do such a thing. But we are a nation of jumping on the bandwagon. Maybe all nations are, but I can only speak for the one I know best. And this is why censorship, if done correctly, really is necessary.

Recently, I've been involved in an issue about the movie Farhenheit 9/11. Now, I refuse to go see it, since I know that Moore makes it his business to spout political "facts" of which at least some of are not correct or are taken out of context to where they can't be understood by the public in general. So I have to assume he has done the same in this "movie" which is being called a documentary, though Moore calls it op-ed. Well, it is either one or the other. If it is his outlook on things, from his personal point of view, it should not be called a documentary, because many, if not most, people who go to see it will get caught up in the hype and believe everything within is the truth. I can't say it isn't, since I have yet to talk to anyone with real knowledge of the political scene who has bothered to go see it. But I can't believe it is, either. Censorship comes in when we, as the public, insist that the piece is marketed for what it is: not a documentary, not facts, but personal opinion and major Hollywood editing. I don't think that's a bad thing. I think that is of the utmost importance. Regardless of how intelligent people can be individually, as it says in "Men in Black," as a group people can be ... well, I think the movie says stupid, but I would say they jump on the bandwagon.

In recent times, it's "cool" to bash our government and people have lots of fun doing so, mainly because it's also a human trait to want to blame anyone else for your problems instead of taking personal responsibility. But that's for another post on another day.

Bashing our government is not cool. It's also not helpful or productive. Spreading rumors and hate and propanganda is not cool or helpful. It seems very odd to me that the same group promoting anti-war sentiment is saying they want peace, but what they are doing is putting the nation at odds with itself, promoting negativity and hate. No, the government cannot go unchecked, but neither should the media, including film, television, and newspapers.

Why is it that our media is siding against our country? Because negativity sells? Anything for a buck? Do the American people ever hear about all of the good things that are going on in Iraq? Do you realize our soldiers are over there handing out school supplies and basic living necessities to Iraqi children who have not had them since they were born? Have you stopped to think about how spreading kindness and caring to these children who have known nothing but deprivation can help make their country a kinder, more peaceful place to live? Kindness is contagious. So is negativity.

As a side note, I do realize there is some media honestly supporting our country, disseminating two-sided facts and talking about the good things going on and what we are actually achieving. I'm afraid that it's much too rare, however. Optimism tends to not sell as well. Whose fault is that? Ours. They will provide what we ask for. How about a bit of censorship as far as not buying negativity or one-sided journalism? I wonder, if this is sent to the papers, how many would publish it?

Want to hear the facts? Try going to www.whitehouse.gov - how many of you have ever been there? Try going to www.military.com to see the other side of things. If you're concerned about our service members, take a few minutes to send them a note of support at www.anyservicemember.navy.mil/ instead of protesting, which does nothing but hurt them personally.

I think, if it's okay to censor our personal web sites, message boards, email lists, and what we say to each other on a day to day basis, it has to be so much more important to censor what goes out to not only our nation, but to the rest of the world. It's a rule in polite social gatherings not to talk about politics because it's personal to people. Why then, is it okay for our media and for Hollywood, to spout political comments as if they are facts when they have no real knowledge about what is going on inside the government? We all need to stop listening to the rhetoric and check things out for ourselves, reading both sides of the story. We need to stop refusing to listen to each others' opinions and start using those opinions to look into what may very well be against our personal views, but a substantial opinion all the same.

Please, feel free to respond with educated opinions and I may add to this with opinions I receive (not if sent anonymously, but identity can be not posted). Don't bother repeating rhetoric because it will be deleted. A little censorship is a good thing.

1 July 2004

2012 Notes

-- I am no longer any part of One Million Moms and have not been for years. Although I still agree with their original theme of promoting more wholesome media for our children and protecting them from undue sex and violence all over TV and such, they have taken things too extremist for my taste. Like many things that could have been a good idea, it went too far.

-- The censorship I meant was as far as insisting on two-sided (round, filled-in) stories instead of one side, and honesty and interest in spreading the full truth instead of fulfilling personal agenda. I recommend the book America, America by Ethan Canin that is spot-on about how the media is tied to the government and interest groups. That is my objection. We should be able to insist on better integrity, or we should learn to identify and dismiss their bias.


-- -- --
The first comment is from Bill, who says "Keep up these thoughts." I also recommend an article on his site: http://www.marshsays.homestead.com/bushdid.html
3 July 04

--
Another comment received:

A couple days ago, I had the opportunity to talk at length with a young man just returned from Iraq. I have known him for several years as a most responsible young person, hard working, honest, and willing to do his share, at the least, for his country. He talked about the good things happening in Iraq now, the soldiers' kindness to civilians, especially the children, their taking care not to hit any religious buildings, etc, the generally positive reaction from the average Iraqi citizen. The two concerns he mentioned that are causing the most stress and grief for our fighting force were the guerilla tactics of the fanatics (strapping bombs to their babies, handing them to American soldiers, then talking about their innocent children being killed - along with the soldier they have just killed without mention, of course) and his concern over the slanted and invasive press. He and his comrades have agonized over the press spreading information, usually inaccurately, to the world before the military even has a chance to process it properly, and is presently concerned about a request from the local press to interview him, as he is worried about a spin, or outright misquote, that could be attached to what he actually says. I know he has reason to worry about that because they did that to me after an interview, on a lesser matter,a few years ago, without printing the retraction I demanded to no avail.

I find it sad that our own press ranks with the Iraqi fanatics as a major concern for our fighting force to guard against. If they haven't the sense to censor themselves, or at least tell the truth, for the sake of our soldiers' safety, then the officers who have the responsibility for their safety (and ours) should have the opportunity and authority to censor them.
4 July 04