|
|
Censorship From the Left
...you allude to censorship from conservatives. It seems like I've heard about a lot of censorship from the liberal left too....
-College student
Yes, there has been, especially in recent years.
As one conservative collegian noted.
From assaults on the First Amendment in the form of speech codes, to punitive rulings against students accused of "insensitivity," to the burning and confiscation of politically incorrect pamphlets and newspapers, to the barring of conservative speakers from college colloquia, such tales [of liberal censorship] are singularly disturbing....
Although considered by some as a bit vindictive and over-the-top, the book, Bias, by Bernard Goldberg, gives some clear examples of liberal bias at the network level. The book is based on reaction to a op-ed piece he did for the Wall Street Journal, published February 13, 1996, that criticized CBS news for a liberal bias. Goldberg, who is a longtime insider at CBS news, gives numerous examples of how thin-skinned some journalists and TV anchors are—the very people who pride themselves on asking others tough questions.*
There is no doubt that the extreme left and the extreme right differ little in their zeal to squelch opinions that they disagree with.
Conservatives have long complained that the "liberal media" and the "liberal press" have kept them from being heard. In particular there have been complaints about many book publishers not being interested in books that espouse conservative views.** Andy Rooney, who has had a distinguished career in journalism, has admitted that he is liberal, along with much of the media.
At the same time liberals complain that the "Republican owners" of the media outlets squelch anti-business news and information. There is conflicting data on this, as noted in this article on media bias.
Although liberals used to be staunch supporters of freedom of all speech—at least speech that wasn't deemed to be clearly illegal—in recent years some liberals have taken a stand against ideas, rhetoric, and epithets that paint minorities in any kind of a (perceived) negative light.
Add to that the "politically correct" speech being pushed by some liberals and you have some pretty clear examples of attempts by liberals to censor or impede free speech.
In the case of some women's groups, this been translated into nonsexist speech. Some new terminology has been accepted, such as substituting: "chairperson" for "chairman." A few suggestions haven't, as, for example, substituting "personhole cover" for "manhole cover."
Even so, these examples don't hold a candle to the history of censorship and even book burning on the part of religious and political conservatives.
In 2002 the most censored books in the United States are reportedly the Harry Potter books because some conservative groups allege that they promote witchcraft and Satanism. At the same the Harry Potter books have been credited for getting thousands of children interested in reading for the first time.
Even "liberal California" has a long history conservative censorship—especially when it comes to "things sexual." Things got off to an early start in this regard when some conservatives banned all the Tarzan books in Los Angeles in 1929, because it was assumed that the fictional character Tarzan was living in the jungle with Jane without the benefit of marriage.
At least one U.S. school allows numerous copies of the Bible, but no copies of Darwin's Origin of the Species. The latter outlines evolution, which controlling groups feel contradicts the Bible.
Things that have been censored by conservatives include Shakespeare's plays and many books considered classics. Even Webster's New World Dictionary has even been banned in some classrooms because it contains some "objectionable words."
Bottom line: today, censorship comes from both the left and the right.
We can only hope that things like the Internet will allow people to have access to the facts, and that they will make decisions untainted by the emotionalism, fears, and rigid "I've-got-my-mind-made-up, don't-confuse-me-with-the-facts" stances.
* Of course, some books also seek to disprove the contentions in Bias. In February, 2003, Eric Alterman's book, A What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News, was published. This exceptionally well documented book credits the shift to the right in the recent decade to efforts by well funded conservative think tanks and their financial backers. Other books on these topics include
Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative by David Brock (Hardcover)
The Woman Who Wouldn't Talk by Susan McDougal, et al (Hardcover)
The Emerging Democratic Majority by John B. Judis, Ruy Teixeira (Hardcover)
The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: An Investigative Reporter Exposes the Truth about Globalization, Corporate Cons, and High Finance Fraudsters by Greg Palast (Hardcover)
The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton by Joe Conason, Gene Lyons (Hardcover)
**Actually, the same could be said for some "left-leaning" books. For example, in 2001 Harper-Collins repeatedly refused to publish Stupid White Men by Michael Moore. When librarians heard why (it's humorously critical of the Bush administration and the 2000 election) they circulated the fact in Internet chat rooms forcing the publisher to finally publish the book. Stupid White Men instantly became a nationwide bestseller.
Did the publisher initially pass on the book because of weak content? That's doubtful; after it was published it got rave reviews in many sectors. The BBC Newsnight said of Stupid White Men: "Absolutely amazing satirical wit, great journalism, great research...wonderful swiftian rage...and total masterpiece."
***In the well-reviewed and thought-provoking book, The Sound Bite Society: Television and the American Mind, Jeffrey Scheuer argues that television relentlessly simplifies, and simplicity is the core principle of conservatism. TV likewise punishes complex ideas and messages, which are the core of liberalism.
Scheuer notes, for example, that the causes of poverty, unemployment, the crime rate, gangs, etc. are complex and cannot be effectively addressed with quick sound bites and political slogans—even though they come across well on TV and appeal to voters.
Thus, rather than being a "liberal medium," according to Scheuer, television strongly promotes an appealing, conservative, oversimplified, direct-solution approach to the complex social and political issues of our times. For example, rather than address the real causes of crime, the solution that's easiest to understand is to get tougher on crime and build more prisons.
© 2005, All Rights Reserved
