Talk:Self-censorship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] self-censorship in democratic countries

There seems to be a fundamental problem with references to self-censorship occuring in democratic countries. Since it seems that counting on self-censorship is the easiest way for a government to "colour" the media in the way it wishes, can we work on an acceptable version ? The latest one was:

In democratic countries, self-cenrsorship is also susceptible to arise, particularly in times of crisis. For instance, in the U.S.A., media organisations (Media Matters for America, FAIR, Democracy Now !, ACLU) have raised concerns about the extend of the phenomenon in particular medias (notably FOX News) since the beginning of the "War against Terror".

Note that these informations are backed with refereces, and are discussed in detailed on the FOX News article. Thank you very much in advance ! Rama 06:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


There is no reason to single out FOX News unless you have an agenda here. Like I said, these are contentious POV claims backed up by very biased sources. I suggest we stick to general examples. It is not up to us to point fingers.

Guy Montag 22:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It certainly isn't, and more examples would be welcome; but self-censorship in democratic countries seems to me as an important issue, and FOX simply happens to be particularly spoken about in this context. The article about FoxNews itself is very explicit on this respect. Perhaps we might want to craft a version of this passage ? Would you have a suggestion ? Rama 22:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Dispute

I have attached the minor NPOV tag until the lines below are corrected to remove the present bias. This has been talked about at length in this discussion, and nothing has yet been done. "For instance, in the USA, media organisations (Media Matters for America, FAIR, Democracy Now!, ACLU) have raised concerns about the extent of the phenomenon in particular medias (notably FOX News) since the beginning of the "War against Terror"."

You are welcome to suggest a better version, or state precisely what is wrong with this one. At present, this is not very helpful. Rama 14:38, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] re: npov

To me, the article begins directly without a NPOV. I attempted to rewrite an intro but ran out of time today, so I'm posting it here for another to use.

Self-censorship occurs when a person or entity changes their thoughts or output to coincide with those of another party. It may be practised willfully, viewed as a required method of gaining acceptance or otherwise achieving a goal. However, the term is usually employed to express when the practicioner is unaware of the process, or. In this sense, self-censorship is practised by anyone who tries to fit in or assimilate to a group.

It is important to differentiate the more common view of self-censorship with the much maligned view which occurs in a professional context. The difference being, arguably, the effect of the censorship on society as a whole. Professionals with an obligation to present fair and accurate aaron 22:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] someone trying to be politically correct here?

the guy who flagged the article as biased is biased himself. he is trying to pursue typical political correctness that ruined free speech in many cases and is self censorship at its best.

Hopefully this article stays as it is, because it describes very exactly what self censorship is.

based on the examples from Japan and other countries incl. US, it is clear that self censorship exists in top medias.

--85.216.133.254 14:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Article is biased towards negative self-censorship

I've always considered one of the more positive forms of "self-censorship" to be a simple tactful choice. Included under this would be: the choice to refuse to speak about a touchy subject in the presence of sensitive company, such as an honest opinion of someone deceased to avoid stress to the bereaved, or the choice to refuse to reiterate an already broached subject to avoid unnecessary filibustering, or the diplomatic choice to hold off on discussion of a sensitive topic until a more appropriate time, or the choice simply to not add to the chatter in a noisy environment. Perhaps this is not a neutral point-of-view, but is there really such a thing concerning the topic of censorship? --gnomelock 06:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Along these lines, there should be some discussion of "standards and practices" departments in media organizations. MisfitToys 20:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I think there is bias in the first few paragraphs of the article. Since it talks about widely undesirable forms of Self-Censorship. And is not until later in the article that desirable forms of Self-Censorship are mentioned. Also the mention of fear as a motivator is negatively biased. This is understandable since people are drawn to the negative aspects of social life, but it does need to be corrected.


Examples of socially-desirable self-censorship are:
+ Blurring credit card numbers in photographs to prevent fraud, or crossing out telephone numbers to protect people from personal attacks.
+ Withholding details on criminal investigations that would otherwise help criminals avoid justice. Since investigations commonly involve government, the honesty in this kind of self-censorship can be controversial. But the principle itself is understood and in my opinion generally accepted.
+ Not publishing crucial details of tests or competitions could also be considered positive self-censorship since they could render the results invalid or meaningless.
I just don't have a reference on the subject and It would be great to have one. If anybody can think of one please write it here.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reuters

Regarding this : Reuters is not accused to censoring its reports. It does give the information it has. Whether they choose to abide to a particular standard of wording has nothing to do with censorship, and particularly, the fact that neo-conservatives shoudl brandish the term "censorship" does to suffice to make it so. Rama 15:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Socially Acceptable Self-Censorship

[Hey, this section was blank when I found it...]

[edit] Self-Censorship in Audiences

Sometimes self-censorship is practiced by the intended audience of works; i.e., sometimes people refuse to read a certain book or watch a certain movie, out of some deference to authority, even though no force or pressure is present. I think the main article ought to mention this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.31.156 (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)