Are
Our Freedoms and Freedom has been getting some bad press lately. Some people say that the media and the arts have too much freedom and that the range of ideas presented by the media — which primarily means broadcast television — should be more tightly controlled. Given the present climate, we need to remind ourselves that the success of a democratic society is based on an informed electorate; and the only way to have an informed electorate is to allow a free flow of information.
| ||||||
Although we all learned about such things in our civics classes, today these values are easy to forget—especially when the free flow of information contains ideas that go against our basic beliefs. Some cases in point: the patently absurd headlines and stories regularly appearing in tabloids ("Two-Headed Woman Marries Two Men!''); some of the U.S. TV programs that have pushed tabloid journalism to new heights; and, of course, the photos, films, videotapes, and art work that have been branded "pornographic.'' Censorship for the Sake of Our Values These and other seeming abuses of free speech have been enough to make many people cry for some type of control of the media—some type of censorship. And that's exactly what's been happening. According to USA Today, overt moves to censor books take place in about 20 percent of U.S. schools each year, with unreported efforts far exceeding this percent. Things that have been censored include Shakespeare's plays, and such classic books as: The Red Badge of Courage, Mr. Roberts, Catcher in the Rye, the Great Gatsby, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, To Kill a Mockingbird, Lord of the Flies, 1984, Go Ask Alice, Of Mice and Men, and the Tarzan books. More recently, the Harry Potter books (responsible for turning on thousands of young people to reading) have been banned by some conservative religious group that feel that they are associated with witchcraft. In fact, the Potter books were the most censored books in 2002. Even Webster's New World Dictionary has been banned in some schools because it contains "objectionable words.'' And, it may only be appropriate that Fahrenheit 451, a science fiction novel about censorship, has also been banned. The issue of book censorship is discussed in more detail here. Press freedom is also an important indicator of a country's freedom. As noted here, in the last two years the United States has dropped to about 30th place press in freedom among the countries of the world.
Interestingly, one of the most disdained fascists in history, Adolf Hitler, won popular approval by promising to clean up "moral corruption" in the media of his time. Once he gained control of Germany, he was directly or indirectly responsible for the death of:
Then, as now, the idea of "cleaning up the media" can have great popular appeal. Censorship has not only been taking place in our schools. During the last decade or so, attempts to keep certain governmental activities from the public have reached new heights. The percentage of government documents marked "classified'' has dramatically increased. Many classified documents have nothing to do with national security; they include toxic-waste studies and significant findings on occupational hazards. More recently, of course, the Internet has become a focus for censorship. This is covered here. In the old days when a messenger gave a king bad news, the king would sometimes become so upset he would kill the messenger. We see anger of this type directed against today's messengers, the news media. Although the news media is justifiably blamed for many excesses, those of us who have worked in news know how readily corruption can thrive when it can be hidden from public disclosure. But thanks to communication technology, it's not nearly as easy to hide things today. To cite just one example, using today's high-quality camcorders, concerned citizens have documented a wide range of abuses of the public trust. We've seen some of the results on network news and public affairs programming. Despots who fear losing their position of authority are generally quick to initiate censorship. The more insecure their status the more desperate their efforts. Throughout history totalitarian regimes and censorship have gone hand in hand. (See the article, The Broadcast Media's Growing Role in International Politics in another section).
Insecurity and the inability to confront new ideas are related to the mobilization of three ego defenses, or personal defense mechanisms. 1. First is selective exposure, where individuals try to minimize exposure to ideas that run contrary to their own beliefs. In this way their views have little chance of being challenged or changed—even though important new facts may emerge. Those who try to limit their own exposure (or other people's exposure) to new ideas may be creating a situation that actually works against them in the long run. Studies indicate that those who do not have a chance to compare and defend their ideas are most apt to abandon those ideas when they are confronted with an opposing view—even though that opposing view is unsound. However, those who have had ample opportunity to test and defend their views are most likely to hold on to them when they are challenged. Interestingly, some radio talk show hosts screen their guest so that no one who holds a view contrary to their own will be featured on the show. Rather than welcome the chance to confront what they think is an inferior idea and stimulate thinking, they seem to fear such ideas. Thus, you can often tell how a secure a person is in their personal beliefs by how well they tolerate opposing beliefs. 2. The second defense mechanism is selective perception. In this case when individuals are presented with ideas or data that contradict their beliefs, they refuse to "see" or recognize the information. If, despite their efforts, they have to confront these ideas, the individuals may try to discredit the source, or attribute the ideas to an incompetent, corrupt, or evil source. 3. Finally, there is selective recall. Simply put, we tend to remember things that support our viewpoints and conveniently forget those that don't. For example, after a TV program is shown which contradicts some of our personal beliefs, we tend to remember only those facts that support our original beliefs. Or, we may remember "different facts," and feel that the program actually supported our views. All of these defense mechanisms have been demonstrated in studies.
Limited Ability to Make Essential Adjustments Although these defense mechanisms tend to protect our belief systems, they also limit our growth and personal opportunities. Possibly more importantly, they limit our ability to adjust to changing needs by being able to consider new solutions to problems. (If our old approaches were truly effective, would these things remain as problems?) Throughout history we've seen what happens to species and societies that were not capable of adequately adapting to change. Today, change is assuming an ever-accelerating pace. Part of this change involves the emergence of ideas that are new—even ideas that threaten cherished beliefs. At one time it was heresy to suggest that the world was not flat or not at the center of the universe. Those who were bold enough to openly advocate another view were censored or even tortured until they "repented." And if that didn't work, they were simply killed, "for the good of society and their souls."
The Price of Freedom We must remember that the price of freedom involves tolerating ideas that differ from our own beliefs. Sometimes we must defend the rights of those we disagree with in order to insure that we, ourselves, will retain the freedom to share ideas that we consider better and more worthy. No, freedom and values are not in conflict as long as we are personally strong enough to consider alternative views and make informed choices based on the knowledge that this freedom makes possible.
To Home Page © 2005, All Rights Reserved
|
Updated:
07/13/2005
