In F451, there were many ways of suppressing thought, and burning books/ideas.

This (US) election year is interesting because both sides of political debate are being stifled -- both in film and books. There is increasing pressure not to allow Michael Moore's (what in my opinion is nothing more than) political propaganda to be advertised, as it has openly stated by Moore himself that it's objective to to unseat Bush. The book by the "Swiftboat Veterans" decrying Kerry is under pressure not to advertise because it is seen as an attack on Kerry prior to a national election.

The rationale for restricting their advertising and even, in some attempts, their distribution, is that they fall outside the parameters of recent regulations on political expendutures associated with the pre-election timeframe.

An Op/Ed on this is is on yahoonews.com at the url below.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=106&ncid=742&e=4&u=/nypost/20040926/cm_nypost/callingallbookburners

The main argument is that the 1st amendment was designed specifically to keep the state from regulating political free speech, and this election has efforts to squelch it on both sides of the aisle.

We can argue nuance of censorship all day and night, but what we see in this case appears to be government-driven efforts to restrain the free expression of political speech (on both sides of the election) prior to a national election.

This is a post on censorship, not political partisanship. I think Moore's F 9/11 is politically partisan and is unfair in it's telling of the story; but I think people ought to be able to promote it and go see it if they want. The same with the book, "Unfit to Command" signed by 260 (or whatever) of the Swift Boat Veterans.

Of course the two are politically motivated. But isn't that exactly what the First Amendment was to designed to protect -- political speech?

Censorship, anyone?

Mr. Dark,

I'm on the record, of course, of being opposed to Michael Moore and his movie but I'm also on the record, somewhere on these threads, of being opposed to limiting his ability to adverstise his polemic as he wishes. The supporters of the McCain-Feingold bill that prevents this kind of advertising - and which has, some would argue, permitted the growth of many 527 groups like MoveOn.org and Swiftboat Vets - may not have anticipated this turn of events. But as the Op-Ed piece points out, though the intent of McCain-Feingold was to permit political speech to be available to more than just those with money, it seems, instead, to be denying a voice to those who can least afford to lose that voice.

Except for truly repugnant speech - advocacy for physical harm of individuals, overthrowing the government, or child pornography - I think the solution is to keep the floodgates open and let the free market of ideas rage.

Nice topic, by the way.

Best,

Pete

There is a big difference between reporting the news and making it up. Thus, a black beetle-colored 451 helmet and salamander arm patch to Michael Moore, Dan Rather, and Kitty Kelley.

Interesting, computer "bloggers" (all new to me!!) played a key role in cracking into the events of the CBS fiasco. So, Pete, you have it right. Ben Franklin really did intend for his volunteers to "put out" fires after all!!

I'm not well enough to step in to this...
Cheers, Translator

[This message has been edited by Translator (edited 09-28-2004).]

According to the NY Post op/ed article, Moore was bullied out of running ads for F911 prior to the election, yet, for at least the last couple of mornings on National Public Radio's news program "Morning Edition," there have been ads announcing the video/DVD release date. NPR calls these little ads "underwriting," which I always thought was a euphemism for "advertising" when it came to public tv and radio, but maybe there really is a difference in the two terms that allows Moore to underwrite, even though he can't advertise just yet. Wonder if the Swiftboat Vets will be next to underwrite.

Ravenswake,

Ah. Freedom finds a way.

Best,

Pete

P.S.

The above message should not be construed as an endorsement of Moore's movie. Also, the above message was approved by. . . well, me.

Pete

A rhetorical Q: Do you think NPR would accept "underwriting" and promotion of DVD's related to Michael Savage or Shawn Hanitty?

fjpalumbo, your question intrigued me, so I sent an email to Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, NPR ombudsman, asking simply what NPR's criteria are for accepting underwriting, especially when the product appears "agendized," and mentioning MM and the Post article. I'm awaiting the response.

And, hopefully, this post "takes." Tried to post a couple of days ago under Legacy/Teacher Ignites Controversy--the post was there, then later, it wasn't, just POOF! gone. HAL again?

ravenswake,

That must have been your post I saw disappear! I was checking the newest postings and saw a new one under one of the forums; when I went into the topics, I saw it there for a VERY brief second and then *poof!* it was gone! Very Twilight Zonish!

ravenswake: Neat-"flying kites"! Today I assigned "The Flying Machine." I did not supply the last page of the story, however (from when the flyer asks to be spared)! I had my freshmen class write their own conclusions to the story.

After collecting their assignments, we orally read the story in its entirety. When I have all papers corrected, we'll discuss their ideas.

Is this one of your favorite RB"s!? (The Emperor in the story would not have taken ANY questionable underwritings!!)

Sorry to take so long to respond; work's a trainwreck right now.

Korby, glad to see someone else noticed the "vanishing post," but it was on a topic I'm probably better off staying away from.

fj, kites are peace, freedom, a communion of earth and sky--stress relief is watching a rainbow delta gather an October breeze.

I read "The Flying Machine" around '69 or '70, and all those earlier books were lost in a fire in 1994 save for two, hardcovers of DW and SWTWC. Had to track the story down, but after reading the first few sentences, I remembered how wonderful it was to read all those ideas and images at that age. Of the kite/flying machine: "It seemed cool, of the wind"--the flier's feeling: "...how free one feels." Finally, the emperor: "One must lose a little beauty if one is to keep what little beauty one already has." I'd read ingredients lists on cereal boxes if RB wrote them.

Your responses to the story will make interesting reading; you must be an excellent teacher. Where the heck were you when my mother (also my freshman English teacher) was having us memorize the Hamlet soliloquy?

Finally, a reply from Jeffrey Dvorkin, National Public Radio ombudsman re MM/F 9/11 underwriting:

"All funding sources are considered under the 'access' principle, which means NPR has no list of sources from which funding will not be accepted. However, potential conflict of interest and problems of listener misperception, confusion, or similar reason regarding the funder's role and/or influence on programming will be considered in accepting or rejecting underwriting."

He continues, "...the FCC allows underwriting credits to include brief non-promotional mentions about the underwriter's products or services, as well as location information," and concludes with a quote of the F 9/11 mention, stating it does not include "promotional language," nor "express an opinion about a matter of public importance." I appreciate Mr. Dvorkin's response, and I've kept it on file if anyone would like to see the complete response.

Rw:
"...watching a rainbow delta gather an October breeze." That is quite Bradburian!!

As for Shakespeare, and having mom as your English teacher, when she got on your case for not having those lines memorized, you could have retorted:
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
-Hamlet (III, ii, 239)

On the NPR rationale, I guess when I heard the same funding reference two mornings in a row this week (after Morning Edition News at about 7:15am), it just seemed a bit
unusual, or maybe obvious, as the tape and DVD release was being promoted for sale via this underwriting venue. Oh, well!

(Student endings of "Flying Machine" varied widely and indeed interesting! Read them today to the class. Thanks!)



[This message has been edited by fjpalumbo (edited 10-25-2004).]

It's been a concern of mine that so many media outlets are owned by so few. The locally owned and operated newspaper or radio station seems to be going the way of the family farm. Unless we seek other sources, we often see what's filtered and presented to us, I think. This "filtering" may not be classic censorship, but maybe it's a form of it.

But--I found this promising bit in today's Evansville (IN) Courier, from editor Paul McAuliffe: "For the first time in the history of the E.W. Scripps Co., each newspaper is making its own presidential endorsement."

I've no idea how many newspapers Scripps Howard owns, but I hope this empowerment of local outlets continues.

For what it's worth, I was listening to NPR early Saturday morning and the announcer mentioned (with what I like to think of as obvious distaste) that the programming was underwritten by Wal-mart. YIKES! If that's not proof they'll offer underwriting opportunities to anyone, I don't know what is.

Talk about anathema...

Julie

[This message has been edited by jfaronson (edited 10-25-2004).]

[This message has been edited by jfaronson (edited 10-25-2004).]

[This message has been edited by jfaronson (edited 10-25-2004).]

The media's forming or manipulating of public opinion is quite concerning.

Sometimes it's as subtle as the way things are worded. There seems to me to be an attempt to soften the harshness of certain issues by the wording that is used.

Here's a few examples.

Abortion-Infanticide

Public Healthcare-Socialized Medicine

Stem Cell Research-Embryo Dissection