One dictionary (AHD4) defines "censor" as:
1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable. 2. An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security. 3. One that condemns or censures. 4. One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising public behavior and morals. 5. Psychology The agent in the unconscious that is responsible for censorship.
and "censorship" as
1. The act, process, or practice of censoring. 2. The office or authority of a Roman censor. 3. Psychology Prevention of disturbing or painful thoughts or feelings from reaching consciousness except in a disguised form.
In both cases, "censorship" carries the implication that there is some clearly identifiable _authority_, usually a specific _office_ and sometimes a single official; e.g. the Lord Chamberlain or the Hays Office or the NBC Standards and Practices office or the New England Watch and Ward society or or the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith or the MPAA Ratings Board.
I think the use of the term "self-censorship" muddies the waters. It's NOT the same thing.
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 10:01:34AM -0600, dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
I think the use of the term "self-censorship" muddies the waters. It's NOT the same thing.
And yet the term has been widely used and discussed among authors and in discussion of the mass media. Many people clearly do consider self-censorship a real and troubling phenomenon, and one worth discussing and doing things about.
Google for "self-censorship" is quite enlightening. Here's the first hit, a USA Today column which relates comments by CNN's "top war corresponmdent, Christiane Amanpour":
http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2003-09-14-media-mix_x.htm
Said Amanpour: "I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did."
Here, "self-censorship" clearly refers to people's choosing not to speak frankly because they fear retaliation. That retaliation doesn't have to be in the form of official censorship (say, criminal charges) but can be in the form of refused access, defamation in other media, and so on. (I doubt that many journalists want to hear their names mentioned on Bill O'Reilly's show, for instance.)
The second hit is a National Geographic article describing scientists who avoid doing research in controversial areas, even when official rules do not ban the research:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0210_050210_censorship.html
Such constraints include the threat of social sanction. Scientists may stay away from research not because it's illegal, but because it breaches an unspoken rule about what is appropriate to study and what is not.
Another hit is a 2000 report summary from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, describing self-censorship in journalism. It details journalists' avoiding of stories which are "too boring or complicated" and therefore won't sell newspapers, as well as stories that "conflict with organizational interests" or "could adversely affect advertisers", and stories that might damage the journalists' careers.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=39 Perhaps surprisingly, peer pressure -- fear of embarrassment or potential career damage -- is mentioned by about half of all journalists as a factor for avoiding newsworthy stories.
On Wikipedia, "self-censorship" could reasonably include choosing not to speak frankly because one fears "social sanction" such as having one's work deleted; as well as "retaliation" in the form of flaming or hostile criticism, others' withdrawal of cooperation or support, or simply unpleasant association of an editor's name with a particular icky subject or controversy.
On the Web at large, including Wikipedia, "self-censorship" could include avoiding certain topics because one wants to avoid being blocked by censorware, or have one's site considered "pornographic" or "extreme" or otherwise unpleasantly thought of.
Karl A. Krueger wrote
<snip>
On Wikipedia, "self-censorship" could reasonably include choosing not to speak frankly because one fears "social sanction" such as having one's work deleted; as well as "retaliation" in the form of flaming or hostile criticism, others' withdrawal of cooperation or support, or simply unpleasant association of an editor's name with a particular icky subject or controversy.
Well, if you try hard enough you might define 'self-censorship' by the old phrase 'man is a social animal'. I doubt that proves anything, in general. And from the WP point of view, getting newbies and not-very-reconstructed edit warriors to see themselves as 'social animals' is half the battle.
Charles
dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
I think the use of the term "self-censorship" muddies the waters. It's NOT the same thing.
Well it would be convenient for some in this argument if that word didn't exist. I don't find "self-censorship" very muddy at all, in fact I see it as the cornerstone of the propaganda/PR industry of the modern world of democracy.
Christiaan