As a writer there is nothing I cherish more than my right to free speech. That is why every report of censorship in the media really gets my blood boiling. Now that President Bush has secured a second term, a trend appears to be emerging in America. The gatekeepers at our television and radio stations and newspapers are going out of their way to avoid anything at all that might be interpreted as morally progressive or anti-administration.
Whether they fear retribution from the public or the president, or both, is hard to say. Recently, CBS and UPN (both owned by Viacom) refused to run a church’s pro-gay advertisement, arguing, in a letter to the church, that “because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations, and the fact the executive branch has recently proposed a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the networks.”
The ad is for the United Church of Christ and features bouncers outside of a church refusing to let gay, minority and disabled worshipers in. The text reads, “Jesus didn’t turn people away. Neither do we.” And then a narrator says, “No matter who you are, or where you are on life’s journey, you are welcome here.” (See the ad at www.stillspeaking.com.)
The first question is: What does a church saying it accepts gay and lesbian parishioners have to do with the Federal Marriage Amendment? The second question, best articulated in an article on Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org), is: “How does CBS justify rejecting an ad that purportedly conflicts with the Bush Administration’s views, given CBS’s apparent willingness to air advocacy ads that support administration policies?”
Think about this for a second. Just because a commercial “touches” on the idea that gays and
lesbians should be treated equally, which is a progressive concept
antithetical to the administration’s homophobia, it is “too controversial” and “unacceptable for broadcast.” Inclusion is too controversial of an idea. Even suggesting that
being gay or lesbian is not a sin is
totally out of line on network
television. What if kids are watching? Think about the children! On a
side note, ABC Family, Hallmark, Nick at Nite and many other stations have agreed to run the spot.
Moving to the world of newspapers, Jim Goldsborough, a senior columnist at The San Diego Union-Tribune, resigned after his column was pulled by the publisher for being “offensive.” The article discussed the fact that Jewish voters are overwhelmingly Democratic.
“The column is not offensive to Jews. Maybe to Bush,” Goldsborough said in a telephone interview with Editor & Publisher. His columns are often more liberal than the editorial board. “I think this was payback,” he said.
In another recent example of censorship, a Nov. 30 Associated Press article was edited by FoxNews.com and the Chicago Sun-Times to hide the fact that the Ohio secretary of state, who oversees elections in Ohio, was also the co-chairman of Bush’s re-election campaign in Ohio. What would compel an editor to delete this blatant example of a conflict of interest? I wonder.
Now don’t get me wrong. Censorship isn’t just a conservative habit. I wrote a column for the Eugene Weekly recently where the word “feminists” was edited out of a paragraph listing moralizing prudes. Not surprisingly, they left in “religious zealots” and “an increasingly oppressive government.”
For most people, one disappearing word here or there, one description, one column and one ad are relatively insignificant examples of censorship. But these examples merely hint at the real issue. Censorship is an institutional problem that is massive in scope. Why, for example, is hard-hitting investigative reporting nonexistent today? Take one part litigation and add two parts corporate monopolization looking out solely for the bottom line, and you have your answer. Costly, time-consuming and politically risky stories will never get published because of the structure of the media business, even if the will exists among journalists.
Furthermore, since journalism is now a commodity to be sold, it must be like every other product that the public consumes: safe, sanitary, branded and appealing to one of our base emotions. The news has to act like a horoscope and tell us what we want to hear. That’s why CNN reports about the war in two different ways: first, a critical version for overseas markets and then a sugarcoated version for Americans. The funny thing is, CNN is still blasted by Republicans for anti-American coverage. And with every complaint the news becomes sweeter and sweeter. Eventually they’ll just say, “What war?” and leave it at that.
Examples of censorship today are too numerous to list completely. The administration is removing politically damaging facts from government Web sites under the guise of legitimate homeland security precautions. This includes removing everything from scientific facts that fail to jive with the president’s religious beliefs and economic imperatives to removing flubs from transcripts of Bush’s speeches. Furthermore, the administration is restricting federal scientists from communicating with World Health Organization officials and manipulating federal advisory committees, all in an effort to politicize the scientific establishment
for partisan ends. This too is a form of censorship.
What can we do? I really don’t know. I can only think of one thing to do: keep writing.

[email protected]