RE: C*nsorship in the TV [was: List Administration & Etiquette]

[Jim Sharkey]

Brett Coster wrote:
>
>Jim:
>To me, when the Federal Communications Commission fines Howard Stern
>$1.5 million because of something he says, it's censorship, right or
>wrong. When an advertiser threatens to drop a show or a group puts
>pressure on its creators because of a gay character being in it,
>that's *not* censorship. If you wish to call it "shadow censorship,"
>you may, but I don't think of it that way.
>
>
>Me:
>It is very much censorship - corporate censorship. Just the same as
>when a news program, say 60 Minutes, has to backpedal on an expose
>into, say lung cancer and tobacco companies, or a sponsoring gas
>company vetoes the airing of a show on Auschwitz.

That's not censorship, Brett, at least not in the sense that it's thought of here in the States. It's only censorship if the government is the one supressing the information. Just because 60 Minutes lacks the sacks and integrity to report the truth because of money doesn't mean the corporation is censoring them.

Maybe we're just disagreeing on the semantics here, but threatening to withdraw support from a show that doesn't agree with your views or will present you in a harsh light is a business decision. The corporation can't *force* you to stop the story as a government can. They can use the government to get injunctions, etc., they can coerce you monetarily or otherwise, but that doesn't make it censorship in the sense that I think of it. It's equally despicable, and maybe even more so, but it's not like the government acting against the First Amendment.

Jim

---