Censorship is, the the words of '1066 and all that', a 'bad thing', isn't it? Of course it is - there would be a justifiable outcry if any government tried to censor our free press. However, it strikes me that a few editors are, in effect, censoring our news coverage. Here are a couple examples from recent days.
How many Libyans are being killed by UN-backed air strikes? I heard a BBC correspondent using the word 'obliterated' when referring to the pro-Gadaffi forces that had been attacking a Libyan town. Obliterated by air power suggests to me that the casualty list might be rather high, but I haven't seen much of a furore being made about this. In a totalitarian state, like Libya, will all of the troops described as being pro-Gadaffi, actually be supporters of the mad Colonel, or will they be regular guys who fancied a better-paid job? I'd quite like to know how many are being killed and a bit more about their motivation.
How are things at Fukushima? Again, it seems that the struggle to regain control of the nuclear reactors there is regarded as having gone on for far too long. Why couldn't these pesky Japanese either fix it quickly, or have the decency to have a proper melt-down? Don't they understand that this is getting boring?
It's an old cliche that editors understand their readers or viewers, but I'm not sure that it truly stand up to scrutiny. What we get is what we're given, and the papers and television news channels all seem to be singing off the same hymn-sheet. If a dozen or so individuals in the Home Office, the Foreign Office, or the Ministry of Truth decided what we could and couldn't see or read, the we'd all be up in arms (possibly literally), but it's OK for a few editors to adopt that role and we seemingly accept it meekly. I wonder what motivates them to decide that some topics are just not right for you and me to read or view? Funny old world.
No comments:
Post a Comment