So, why am I writing this,then?

First, a brief story that I hope will illustrate the point I will soon make.

Many years ago, I was watching Orson Wells chatting it up with Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show. Carson, who apparently was a film buff to the extreme, asked Wells about one of the more famous camera angles (shot from ground level at an extreme angle) that had been used in “Citizen Kane” and that had been the subject of great debate over the years in books and film courses all across America. Indeed, I recalled such a discussion about this very shot in a film class I once took as an undergraduate in New York more years ago than I care to remember.

Wells, as only Wells could, leaned back, or tried to–he was, after all, fairly–how should we put this?—fat–and laughed loudly in a bass roar that actually made my feeble television speaker rattle.

Carson actually looked surprised. What was so funny? or words to that effect–Carson asked.

Simply this, Wells replied: He had been amused for many years, he said, about all the theories and speculation regarding why he decided to place his camera at the one particular location to capture this one particular shot. The fact was, Wells said, the set had not been built to the specs it was supposed to have been which created a problem in terms of where to place the camera.

The much debated–and often described as “brilliant” camera position was, said Wells, simply a practical matter. The debate was over something that wasn’t even real!

Which, finally, brings me to my point: Of course government censorship isn’t better than private, corporate censorship or blacklisting, whichever you prefer. I wouldn’t even know how to evaluate such a thing in the abstract.

But that was not the meaning of that paragraph–which, Howard is correct–was written fast and, therefore, probably not as clearly as it could have been. (And, yes, it does prove the point of our book, but leave it for others to determine that for themselves).

Rather, what was meant was simply this: In this country–and that was what was being referred to–government censorship does not actually happen all that often, at least not in the truest meaning of the word. However, having spent more than a score years doing investigative reporting of all types, I have no doubt in my mind that corporate attempts to stifle discussion or conceal negative information from public view, is widespread, all to common and a growing problem.

From non-disclosure “agreements” forced upon employees, to costly litigation designed to punish those who dare reveal company “secrets,” I have found, over the years, getting information from companies is often far more difficult that it is from government agencies.

At least, in this country, there are laws in place (i.e., freedom of information act) that however badly they might be executed or even subverted, still exist and still provide a powerful weapon in the hands of a skilled journalist. Not so with corporations –even though these companies may manufacture drugs that make us sick, or tobacco products that addict our young, or cars that, more often than not, fail even the most forgiving of government crash tests. Good luck trying to pry information from these companies. You best have very deep pockets and lots of time to kill.

Years ago, I remember a discussion at CNN, where I worked at the time, involving several reporters (I was one), producers and the then senior assignment person in Atlanta. There was a proposal on the table to do a series of reports from different parts of the country about a growing underclass–people who dropped out of the job market or could not get in–people whose education skills would forever cast them as non-productive citizens–people for whom poverty was a sentence imposed upon them that they could never appeal.

The executive editor, who came from a very conservative, Southern, and Republican family (and a famous one at that) stopped the conversation cold. No! There would be no series on an emerging underclass in the United States because, she said, her belief-and her family’s belief- was there was no such thing as an underclass in America. If people were down and out, then they were down and out of their own doing, she stated in no uncertain terms.

The proposed series of reports stopped then and there. The cable news network of record, as it liked to call itself in those days, would not report this story.

Now, I can hear those quick to jump in and say—but, wait, even if CNN didn’t do that story, others did, or could have! Yes, that is true–of this one story; not of many others. Like minds tend to reach like conclusions: those who reach the ranks of newspaper executive editors or television network executive producers often think the same because they are the same in many ways.

Lastly, I agree with an earlier comment that television and radio stations cannot be lumped in along with newspapers and magazines.

We forget all to often that, by law, the “owners” of television and radio stations in the United States are custodians of the public airwaves, charged with a very special responsibility to promote fair and honest discussion within the communities they serve. This, of course, does not mean that they are required to throw open the switch to everyone who comes along with something they want said. But what it does mean is they MUST go that extra mile or two to make sure the public is exposed to as wide a range of opinion and debate as is reasonably possible.

Charles S. Feldman

AT&T Plays Gatekeeper. Censors Pearl Jam.
August 9th, 2007 by tkarr

Over the weekend AT&T gave us a glimpse of their plans for the Web when they censored a Pearl Jam performance
…

Our friends at the Future of Music Coalition have done great work to mobilize hundreds of rock bands against such censorship but it’s a threat that concerns everyone.

nytimes.com/2007/08/10/business/media/10censor.html
Censoring of Song Was an Error, AT&T Says
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 10, 2007

SAN ANTONIO, Aug. 9 (AP) — Lyrics sung by Pearl Jam criticizing President Bush during a concert last weekend in Chicago should not have been censored during a Webcast by AT&T, a company spokesman said Thursday.

An NGO President writing an Op-Ed in a national newspaper is undoubtedly creating an “act of journalism,” more so than a veteran journalist writing a hasty personal email. Thanks for removing “Clueless” from the title.

But the authors in this case are journalists. They, of all people, should (and obviously Howard Rosenberg does) know better. I hold them to a higher standard.

Excellent point.
On September 26, 2007, you linked to the NYT article about Verizon reversing course on their choice to block NARAL messages. But you neglected to catch this in the article:

Nancy Keenan, Naral’s president, expressed satisfaction today. “The fight to defeat corporate censorship was won,” she said.

Note that this is not a hastily-written email by a spurned private individual, it’s a prepared statement by the president of a national organization following a corporate policy redeemed in their favor. In fact, Keens referred to “censor” 4 times in a follow-up Op-Ed on this in the WaPo, and this became some more fuel for the NN movement.

That’s just why I was confused that you were so quick to condemn this casual usage here.

The topic of the book (Jon, I did link to it, though not until I received the note from Howard Rosenberg) is quite important. I’ve ordered it and will post a mini-review when I have time.