Our merry travels through the internet world and responding to readings continues with this little ditty from The Washington Post's Ombudsman.
The link can be found here.
I'm assuming you know what an ombudsman is. If you don't, look it up.
So, this begs several questions: what is censorship in today's world, and what is revision? In this instant-gratification society of ours, how are we to deal with the rewriting of history? Where are we headed in regards to publishing an opinion that may or may not be popular with the public?
Are we working our way into Orwellian territory? (George Orwell's 1984 has proven somewhat prescient on the ideas of censorship and history, and rewriting it. Commenting on this novel wouldn't hurt, if you know it, and I'm assuming most of you have read it in high school.)
You can then take this to other extensions in other fields: how do you know if the photograph you've just witnessed is doctored or not? (I remember something about Condoleeza Rice - if I can find it, I will post it...) How are we to know what is the truth in today's CTL+ALT+DEL society? Where is the spin coming from in our information, and who is responsible in the field of "journalism" (I use the term VERY loosely) today?
This is the jumping off point - if you have any ideas that pertain to this discussion, or leap off into the great unknown with these as the starting points - feel free to glom on them, to the tune of 300 words.
Kim, I know you're having issues logging in; we'll figure it out (or I'll just send you a new invitation to a different email account).
These are due Monday at NOON - we've got a whole week to get this done (remember, your rough drafts for Paper #1 are due this Friday)...
Enjoy,
MP
Censorship today is vastly different from when I grew up as a kid. I could remember in the late 80’s when the Simpson’s first came on TV and Bart said “Eat my shorts man”. Well, back then you just didn’t hear that kind of thing. They were considered the south park of their generation. Now there considered an ok family show. You have to remember this was a time when shows like who’s the boss, the wonder years and the cosby show where the top shows on television. And we also had TGIF. If you don’t know what that is here is a link to show you what the top programming was like before most of you were born. Scary I know.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGIF_(ABC)
Also for those of you that remember beavis and butt-head, their antics where just about appalling to most people. But I loved watching them.
But today with less censorship for shows like South Park, which is just about the worst show on TV, the less censorship the better for them. This allows them and other programming a certain shock value in what they say or do so they can get more viewers and make money off of merchandise and advertising. Similar to what Howard Stern was like when he first started broadcasting. Now I’m not saying censorship should only allow “quality” programming. This is hardly the case. I watch TV show that people might find offensive such as Family Guy. There they make fun of everything from being gay to politics and the media. But I also watch the discovery, history, and the learning channel I believe what makes a good human being is the ability to see both sides and judge for yourself what you find offensive. Not letting someone else tell you what is good or bad. Why? Well let me put it to you this way. If all you do is let someone tell you what is on the “left (good) or right (bad)” all you’re going to do is end up going around in circles and you’re never going to make it down that straight path that will make you a great individual that you can be.
I’m currently taking Media Power and Culture and we just did a week on censorship. The past decade alone censorship has changed greatly. I used to watch “Friends” growing up and over the years of watching that show they talked about sex more openly, compared to how they talked about it when the show first started. I think that people now are more open to every topic and don’t cover up as much anymore. Just look at shows like Family Guy. They joke around about everyone and everything to a large extent. If you really listen to what the characters on that show are saying, it is very rude. But everyone finds it funny. I even do. I think much of it has to do with the fact that they don’t focus on one group or person to make fun of they hit everything. Our lifestyle has changed so much. Cursing has almost become everyday language for some people. Some shows don’t even censor swearing out anymore after a certain time, or on certain television stations. Everyone says what they want now, and sometimes people react negatively to what they say, or think its hilarious. Not only do people saw what they want now they show it too. There is no way to tell the difference between what is true or not anymore with today’s technology. Anyone can get a great photo editing software and make anything look real and post it on the internet and let people think what they want about it. Then the gossip of the picture just spreads. Censorship right now is barley in existence. It is shown more on television than it is on the internet since anyone can post something on the web without being approved, its only after a lot of people see what’s posted and word of that post spreads that someone comes along who thinks its inappropriate and somehow get it down before more people can see it.
ReplyDeleteI personally have a very liberal view of censorship. I feel that if you tune to a radio station which plays predominantly modern music (including rap), then you should fully expect to hear a few “F-bombs”. If you give your five year old a radio of his own, lay down the rules. It is not the radio station's job to be sure your child doesn't listen to their program and learn some colorful new words. The same concept applies to literature to an even greater degree. If you're sensitive to animal rights, you should not read an article which details and exaggerates the brutality of slaughterhouses in America. This sort of behavior is just crazy. It's like running in front of a speeding car and then getting mad because the driver struck you with his bumper. The editor of this blog may have simply been trying to keep her readers happy and allow the audience to grow by using minimal offensive opinions. However, it seems by removing the original post without warrant, she accomplished just the opposite. People would rather be outraged than deceived. People in general do not want a watered down version of the truth either. The people who read articles like this one, which expresses an opinion about a current event, want passion and scandal. People occasionally WANT to be offended. Just read the comments section of any video on youtube, the box is flooded with insults and differing views of the video content. People rarely comment just to say, “great video! That baby was hilarious!”. No, the comment box is almost always kindled with a nasty remark about how inhumane it is to let a baby play with a live cobra. Its mouth was sewn shut for crying out loud! (I was personally a little disturbed by the video) But the point is, taking down the original article was far from the right thing to do. People want an untainted view of what's happening, not an edited version which leaves us with only a hint of the travesty that has occurred.
ReplyDeleteJust for fun, here is the link to that video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEVq_fGsY-o
After reading Andrew Alexander's article, I simply had to find the blog post he mentioned and read it for myself. A few minutes of digging turned up the blog post in question (the edited version, of course). I located the line that was changed fairly quickly and compared it to the original version presented in Alexander's article. I found no reason to censor this line.
ReplyDeleteCensoring an article for slander is one thing. However, this was not the case in Bill Turque's blog post. The blog entry in question was about the editorial section and the metro/news section of the Washington Post having different goals. The editorial section is just that- opinions. The news section is about presenting facts to the public, even if those facts do not cast a public official in a good light. Turque pointed out that Chancellor Rhee is more comfortable talking with a women on the staff of the editorial board since it supports her than with him since he must report facts that she might not want the public to see. The statement that was edited merely interpreted the tone of the editorial section. This is hardly slander and easily investigated.
This whole situation is troubling to me. The phrase that was removed was not a large section of the article. However, they censored a person's opinion. If they would censor someone's opinion about an opinion section of the newspaper, no less, then what else are they willing to censor? Newspapers are supposed to be the defenders of freedom of speech, aren't they? Editing an opinion because it seems "unfair" is preposterous. Does that mean if an author does not like a critic's review of his or her work that the review should be censored?
Alexander also seems to make excuses for the Managing Editor's mistake by bringing up policy issues. Yes, she handled the situation poorly by not "leaving a paper trail", but this was not the first mistake. The post should have never been edited in the first place. Brining up issues in policy development only makes the situation worse. Now I call into question the Washington Post's professionalism as well as their reporting practices.
Censorship has definitely changed over the time. When i watch shows from back in the day on Nick at Nite like or TV land it is totally different from shows that are now. Back then there were shows like Brady Bunch, Gulligans Island and the Cosby Show. Back then there were no shows like Family Guy or South Park. Family and South Park do not what they show any more. They are so rude and cruel but it is what people like now. It is like when we talked about reality television we want to see fights and cursing and other violent actions. People now would probably not watch shows that are like Wonder Years or MASH. That is boring for the people these days. It is quite embarrassing how the society is like that now that they want to see rude and cruel shows. The writers of shows know that we like those kind of shows now so there are going to keep being more shows like that. Now censorship is barely shown though. They pretty much only censor out the "F" bomb. But now cursing is pretty much our language so it is not really a big deal any more. How young are kids starting to curse now? When I was in middle school most kids were already cursing now. So it is only the really young kids like in fifth grade that the writers of shows have to worry about and those kids are still watching cartoons on nickelodean still. At this rate there probably will not be any censorship some day. Honestly what does censorship really do. When words get bleeped out we know what they are really saying. It is even worse when they play movies on regular television and they change the curse words. We obviously know what they are saying so I really do not think that censorship does much.
ReplyDeleteI feel that today's world is filled with lies and slander, controlled and manipulated by the media. If you were to watch the news today, everything would be either fixed or altered in some way or another. Such as the sporting world and what was happening this week. In the NBA, it was the trade deadline that was about to pass so all teams wanting to make a run for the playoffs or clear cap space for next year, had to make the move now or live with the consequences. Evidently, NBA "experts" were posting remarks on who is going to be traded next and what they were hearing around the league. These "experts" were making thousands of dollars basically making up rumors to stir up the media. Only about 2 or 3 of the possible 30 to 40 possible trades happened that day. The sad thing is, is that I read every report, every posting, every possible blog available on ESPN and Yahoo!Sports, because I was so excited about these possible trades. The Media has lost its truth but sadly not its credibility. We all still read the gossip in the magazines, we all want to know everything, even if its false.
ReplyDeleteAlso, censorship is all but gone. Watching TV, a show can show just about everything and say just about anything without it being censored out. Growing up, saying poop on the TV was a no-no, but ever since the post Howard Stern era has started, I hear shit, poop, pussy, ass, damn, hell, dick, penis, just about any word but the F word. I can change to any channel and I will hear the N word. It's sad to say that by the time I have children, it will be perfectly politically correct to swear in public. My child would have heard every curse word in the books by the age of 5. It saddens me that this availability is out there, along with shows such as The Girls Next Door that barely leaves much to the imagination. As a semi-adult, I am not complaining one bit, but as a future father I am scared for the well being of my children and family.
I’m currently taking Principles of Advertising and we did a section on censorship and how it differs from here, in the United States, and in other countries. There was one car commercial that my teacher showed us the aired in Great Britain. Then she showed us a car commercial from here. The two car commercials dealt with a car crash and the two commercials were totally different. The commercial from here dealt with a Jetta getting in a crash when some one was pulling out of a drive way and the two people in the car were fine. The commercial in Great Britain was much more graphic. The person in the back seat didn’t have his seat belt on and the car he was in got into a car crash. In the commercial it shows that he (the person in the back seat with out the seat belt) ends up flying all over the car hitting his head in the front window then his body hitting the two people in the front seats and killing them. Then him hitting the other person in the back and that person died. At the end of the commercial the narrator says three people are dead because someone didn’t wear their seatbelt in the back.
ReplyDeleteAlso with the shows I’ve watched over the years, I’ve noticed things have changed in the things that are aired now. I’ve been watching the show “Accidently on Purpose” that airs on CBS. It’s about a woman who gets pregnant on a one-night stand and the man is in his 20s while she is in her 30s. She ends up wanting to keep the baby and the father moves in with her. A few years ago you would have never seen that. With the new shows like “Cougar Town” or “Modern Family” those plots would have never flied with the networks a few years ago.
As far as blogs go who should edit them. Are there rules that every newspaper in the country goes by? It doesn’t seem to me that there is and it seems like who ever the editor is gets to decide what goes up or what goes up and gets re-edited. There should be at least some type of rules.
Since the United States was founded, Americans have had a set of alienable rights stated in our Constitution. The right to free speech is one of the most basic constitutional rights. However, ever since then there have been people trying to censor these rights. I’m a firm believer that Americans should be able to publish and say whatever they like without government interference.
ReplyDeleteCensorship and revision in my eyes are one in the same thing. Revising something to alter someone’s words and ideas should be unconstitutional, unless it is slander. People should have the right to state their opinion, even if they receive negative attention. I feel since the Internet boom, people want live up-to-date news at a click of a button. This has lead to journalist publishing stories on the spot without getting their facts straight. Since it is easy to push the delete button, false information can be erased without consequences. Even if there are guidelines for journalist to publish misinformation a lot of these journalist don’t even know what they are.
Growing up, I remember watching shows like Arthur, Little Bear, and Doug. These shows never eluded to sex or inappropriate language. Now-a-days children are watching shows, like South Park and Family Guy, that use crude humor to get a few laughs. I believe that society is changing and even with censorship children would still find ways to watch these shows. It is the parent’s responsibility to censor what children are watching if they have an issue with the media and stuff posted on the Internet. I do believe however, that journalists should be more careful about what they publish and there should be regulations if something on the Internet is changed.
My first reaction to this article was ....”What?”.... I’m bewildered of that the fact that this whole censorship/editing situation got this far. Alexander is absolutely right, the credibility of the paper is only being damaged when putting forth actions like these. I understand making corrections on facts (which is important) but opinions? No. The fact that somebody can go back and edit one of your posts is neither comforting nor freedom of speech but invasive. It is thought we have freedom of speech and to an extent we do. We have the right to say whatever we’d like, however it doesn’t give you the right to be... excuse my language, stupid! Therefore, if you say anything offensive its on you and you must be prepared to defend yourself and or your idea. However, in this case what was originally posted was not bad at all, and the need to “tone” it down was a bit too much. The paper is said to have been trying to be protective, but at what costs? The uproar that it had with its readers made it clear that they had made a mistake by editing a sentence. (We’re not 5 years old, I’m sure we can handle it.)
ReplyDeleteCensorship is I believe tolerable. If I’m watching a television show with a young kid and something is bleeped out I’d appreciate it for the kids sake, however, if I’m watching something informative and a person is expressing their views I would want to hear every single word. Censorship is also a big problem when it comes to music. Words are very powerful and very crucial in the music industry. Many artists hate the FCC for hindering them from being able to 100% express themselves. In this generation and as our society progresses our tolerance for vulgar language and obscene material has increased. Censorship is not what is was a decade ago. Some things back in the day never saw the light of day. Writing, music and photographs do now. The only problem I have with it now is that if I were to write a blog for example and someone changed a sentence in it, its not only offensive to me but its very deceiving and its a “lie!” I would rather it not be published than altered!
Censorship will forever change, the question is how far will it go till we do something about it? And is it really “protecting” us?
Censorship is not really protecting anyone. I believe it is trying to strive for maintaining the idea of rationality, in which they are failing. However, who's to say that Turque's article wasn't going to stir up some zealous, radical feelings in someone who read the original? I could barely stand to read either article so I won't say this article is right or wrong. The only problem here is the editing of someone else's work, silencing their right to freedom of speech. With ideas like that, people will either take it or leave it. If something you read is opinion based then that's all it is. An opinion. If you disagree with it, well you're SOL because the thought is already out there. And to dismiss, erase, or edit it is truly an act of poor judgment, close-mindedness and selfishness.
ReplyDeleteCensorship has greatly diminished its aims to "cover up" anything that we see or read or hear about. As long there are people, it only takes one out of many to say something, or produce something that will become so mainstream that everyone will know about it. So why even try to hide something so worldwide that is available to everyone who searches for it, young or old. That is clearly why we have ratings on certain books, films, music. Which is still something I can't understand. What does age limit have to do with anything that requires censorship or ratings like PG-13 or NC-17? Who's to say that a 13 year old mind can't comprehend a sex scene in a movie more so than an 17 year old? Sex is natural to humans and animals alike so why try to keep it away like its some secret ritual. I can't help but see it as a form of discrimination. It's all up to self perception for how one may handle seeing, reading, or listening to something that may seem to "grown up" for them. A child may play a violent video game, but should that make him want to kill or maim people out on the street. If he handles his perception of reality, knowing that the game is a false imitation on life, he should play it until his heart's content.
Truthfully, I've watched Jerry Springer since I was a child and I'm most certainly not a oversexed, , back-stabbing, cheating, low life, carny sideshow like those that appeared constantly on the show. Does that make my mother or father bad parents because they didn't censor what I could and could not watch on t.v.? Not to me, but then again, that is my opinion. And if the FCC censored all that was being produced today then what else would be left? Something is always going to offend some yet not others, its how you perceive it.
I believe censorship is very prominent in todays society. As in the photos in magazines being completely altered being one of them. The way people are changed to look perfect in magazines. The Dove Campaign came out with a new advertisements the campaign is called The Campaign for Real Beauty. There is a really good youtube video that explains is well. In the video it is a stopmotion movie on how they transform a girl from her normal state to how they edit her to get on a billboard. This influences me a lot because I feel like all girls lives they try to compare themselves to look like the girls in magazines when they are younger and really that is nothing like that model really looks like. I believe that the way those women look leads to girls creating this perfect body, when really no one looks like that. The youtube video is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U. Check this out you will not believe what you are seeing. You never know how much things are perceived until you watch this youtube video, I have showed it to a lot of my friends and they cannot believe they are watching that. This is the main point of censorship that bothers me because I believe that this is what leads young girls to anorexia and bulimia which ends up killing young girls daily. I feel like magazines need to be more real, even in the movie The Devil Wears Prada they say for example well maybe if we use some Crisco we can fit you into these size 6 dresses with your size 8 body. Things like this show how the fashion industry really is. It deceives us so much. We must put in our heads that things really aren't always as it seems. A lot of things are possible with a good editing program and some photoshop work. So next time you look through a magazine think about the way those women are completely airbrushed and if you ever have a doubt again just watch that youtube video again.
ReplyDeleteI think censorship is crap. Why is it that things that we experience in everyday life, are things we can’t watch on TV. And now days, kids are worse than ever. Elementary level children have worse mouths than me and most of my friends. Society is slowly getting less censored with each other in everyday life, so why can’t we watch it on TV. It is gotten better if you think about it. Think back to what was racy when we were children. Shows like Beavis and Butthead and the real world were shows I was not allowed to watch. Now there are things like Family Guy and South Park. Family Guy is my favorite show on TV. It’s because it makes fun of different groups of people. Our society has shifted into an understanding of different groups of people, so now we are able to laugh at these things and at ourselves. Look at the Chappelle show. Back when, that show would have been considered terrible. But now it is aired on TV with no problem. Censorship has also shifted in the other direction at the same time. WWF wrestlers are not allowed to bleed any more. But before they would have fake blood and really play up the injuries. I think this is because our society is becoming more violent.
ReplyDeleteI just think that it should be, anything goes. Then it is up to parents to censor what children are watching. That is why before certain shows, it has a warning of its content. Also don’t send you kids to rated R movies unless you want them to see them. I just think if its reality, and we see it everyday of our lives, then what’s wrong with watching it on TV.
Just for fun here is the HULU link to the family guy that makes fun of the FCC. It’s all I could think about when reading and writing about censorship. If you have never seen this episode, definitely check it out this clip. It’s hilarious!
http://www.hulu.com/watch/50395/family-guy-the-freaking-fcc
The Washington Post’s Ombudsman presents a solid argument for the upholding of journalistic ethics on the internet. With the existence of such programs as Adobe Photoshop as well as the presence of online editors, there lies a sense of unreality in the online press. On the web, the regulations for publications revising their pieces without notification to the public are dismal. Thus, there is much confusion in regards to the ethicality of online journalism and blogging.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Orwell’s 1984 presents a utopian society in which “Big Brother” deems certain publications to be appropriate, while others are illegal, exemplifying the potential future of online, journalistic ethics. Due to the lack of ethical regulations on the internet, there are a variety of ways in which a publication may revise its post(s) without notifying the public of what has been revised, and why it has been revised. There lies much responsibility on the publication’s part to do this because without remaining ethical, the publication is likely to lose much of its credibility. With the current advancements of technology, it makes it difficult to determine a uniform manner in which all publications may revise their work, however it must be done as was done with newspapers. Corrections on newspapers are very consistent in the sense that they solely appear on page A2, whereas on the internet, there are a variety of ways in which a revision may be made. This lack of regularity results in a loss of credibility.
Although technology has allowed society to come closer together, it has also allowed much of the information that lies in the online abyss to be tainted. It is unethical to rewrite history, and the unnoted revision of a publication is simply a alteration of history.
I found that this article has stirred up some interesting comments among the contributors to this blog. Ideas are mentioned of censorship and revision not only in the newspaper changes that upset so many readers, but in the media in general today. I agree with what many other blog comments said about T.V. being much different than it used to be. It used to be a huge deal for T.V. shows to use profanity and was looked at as inappropriate and wrong. It today’s society, T.V. shows can get about with about anything. Depending on the time of day and channel, you can watch a show on regular cable before 10p.m. that has use profanity, drugs, murder, crime, sex, and any other number of things that may be considered inappropriate for television by some, especially parents.
ReplyDeleteAs far as printed media such as newspapers, online posts, and magazines things can be different. How do we know anything can be considered credible anymore if we can’t really know for sure what is true. Pictures can be photoshopped to convey a false story, anyone can post things on the web, and writers can change their articles to better appeal to the readers popular opinion like in the article we just read. Clearly we aren’t always getting the full story if changes can be made to meet the story that majority of people would want to hear. Writers should be able to show themselves through their work, and not have to write in a way so that people will like and agree with them.
I feel the direction our media today is going is not the right way. Before we know it all kinds of stories that “society shouldn’t hear” could be kept from us or changed and we wouldn’t know. The further the media goes I feel the further it is from the truth.
I believe this article is of great importance. Correcting errors, rather it is grammatical or fact wise should be practiced by anyone who posts information online. It is always best to be honest and show corrected mistakes. If this is not practiced readers will eventually notice and find out, as reinstated in the blog. This will cause the dishonest writer to lose credibility. Depending on the website and the information it entitles, showing corrected mistakes might not be as important, but sites that are known to be credible and are used regularly for information and facts need to make sure they have correct information and if there are mistakes, show the corrected errors. I think it is important to stress the policy of corrections to all writers. As stated in the blog, people were not aware of the policy or they had trouble finding it. If more writers knew about the policy, I believe there would be fewer errors and the errors that still happened would be corrected honestly. I agree with Straus when they say that they will get clobbered eventually if they try to cover up corrected information without leaving an honest trail. I believe there is a certain degree to which errors should be noted once corrected. In my opinion if a word is spelled incorrectly in an article and then it gets corrected shortly after, then that does not necessarily need to be noted but if there is a sentence or any amount of information that is false and gets corrected without being noted, then I believe that is wrong. Overall, I agree with this article and its content. I believe it is important to make note of errors that are corrected to maintain credibility and honesty. If a writer has even the slightest doubt whether to make note of an error or not, I think they should do it to be safe.
ReplyDeleteThe fact of the matter is this. Our society will never become anything like that of the poor people in 1984. In that fictional (thank goodness) world whatever big brother says goes. Not that our society doesn't have its own big brothers, it can't begin to touch 1984's. It is one thing to keep an eye out for terrorist activity as opposed to book burning and making sex a civil duty!
ReplyDeleteThe internet is ever changing and growing, and regulating this "history rewriting" is near impossible. It is not right, but there are ways to combat it and hopefully defeat any reason for it to have lasting effects. In my paper I discuss this exact topic. My solution for this is one simple thing. Media literacy. Media literacy. "Media literacy is the ability to sift through and analyze the messages that inform, entertain and sell to us every day." (mediaawareness.com) It is a simple concept that could, and should already be taught at all school levels. If every citizen sought multiple sources for their information, and purposefully considered opposite positions and arguments our society would be considerably more educated.
Media literacy combats this because even if one blogger changes his words so he is less offensive or whatnot, one could simply find another blogger that took whatever was said and expose the original blogger. To put it simply, sources would keep each other honest. In fact I would not be surprised to find enterprising young folks out there scouring the internet to find other peoples mistakes, and once they are fixed, selling what they found to the highest bidder.
Our capitalist ideals will keep these 'historical editors' from getting a foothold in our society. Don't you love that American spirit?
Citations:
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/teachers/media_literacy/what_is_media_literacy.cfm
I agree with Collin in the fact that the writer and the reader have the duty to check the facts of any article or information given to the public. It is the public's job to be informed about an issue if they are to argue against it or agree. I also agree in the above posts pertaining to the idea that our society has 'opened up' so to speak about previously more scandalous or outlandish things. In the 80’s Television had the Huckstables, the perfect, well-off American style family. Even in the early 90’s the ‘perfect American family’ image was sewn into popular television with Full House. But around the turn of the millennium family sitcoms started having real controversial issues in their plots. In the early 2000’s Reality Television hit and really captured the audience’s interest. I believe that audiences love Reality TV because it shows average people in a ‘real’ setting, sometimes going against a social norm, but all-in-all just being human. Looking back you can really see television evolve and change, getting more controversial, to now where nudity and offensive language is not an uncommon thing in movies, TV shows, and even the radio. TV and radio have become more reality-based, even if it is controversial because being controversial brings ratings. People want to see reality TV "stars" battling for a cash prize or their whole lives taped and shown on TV because then the audience feels as though they can relate. Ultimately what matters most is ratings. If the FCC slaps a fine on them but they have the #1 viewed TV show of the year, I think that network will take the fine 9 out of 10 times. However, playing devil’s advocate, how far does a TV series push the boundaries of controversial until they cross the border into unnecessary and inappropriate? Ultimately I think it comes to down to the culture of the people and the power of the situation. In one situation a word someone might deem offensive really isn’t… and vise versa.
ReplyDeleteCensorship and The Blogosphere
ReplyDeleteRevision is just a form of censorship. Mostly all pieces of writing are revised in one way or another, especially in print. So it’s not a surprised to me when blogs are revised. Blogs are extremely popular these days, and have many readers following these blogs as a source for information. When revisions occur on the blog scene it is normally to fix something that may offend a group of people with a particular set of beliefs. The authors rework the blog to be more politically correct. I think everybody’s trying to be too politically correct at all times. Blogs are usually seen as one of the most honest sources of someone’s opinion. Revisions are only weakening someone’s right to voice their opinion on an issue. The great aspect of blogging is that it normally stirs up a decent discussion, but if it is revised so much the discussion becomes weaker as well. The issue of revisions in the blogosphere “rewriting history” is a little dramatic. The problem is there isn’t a protocol for bloggers to go by when revising their works. I feel there is a simple solution to this issue. Writers just need to find the initiative to set up a coalition to layout the ground rules of revising a blog. There just needs to be a few simple ground rules laid out to show how to leave a trail of the original blogs and corrected factual errors. I think the main problem the public has that the ombudsman was trying to address is that bloggers do not always give reason for why blog post were altered. The public feels cheated and doesn’t see the blog ass a creditable source. I feel if a simple ground rules were planned out for the blogosphere these problems would soon be corrected.
I think it was wrong for The Post to edit their blog entry. A blog is for people to post their opinions. There was nothing wrong with “protective and, at times, adoring”. He was just stating his opinion. They shouldn’t edit something if they agree or don’t agree with it.
ReplyDeleteIf the Post is going to edit blog entries they should have a disclaimer saying what will be tolerated in the blog and what people post maybe edited and if they do edit something they should say that the blog should be edited.
Television shows and ads are constantly challenging what can be shown or said. They beep out people say cuss words but you can still understand what they are saying. South Park pushes the limits with making fun of every political and influential person they could think of. I think if you don’t like these shows or the opinions the views they have don’t watch them. There are other shows that have other things on. People need to choose what they stand for and if they have a problem with someone’s opinion they need to stand up against it but what is to far when it comes to pushing the envelope of censorship?
When it comes to blogging no one should accept the blog as a credible source. It is people stating their opinions and having a discussion on what they believe in. There is no reason for the Post to edit that post on the blog. There needs to be a set of rules and guidelines when it comes to editing. You shouldn’t be able to change someone’s words.
Censorship today is a lot more lenient now then it was in the past. From what I can remember, television shows back in the day did not talk about sex, drugs, etc. nearly as much as they do today. It is your choice as an individual what is too much for public or what you find completely acceptable. Many people have different opinions on what they find offensive and what they find publicly acceptable. As Logan had mentioned, I agree that it is your choice to give your attention to what you find acceptable and steer clear of any media you find to be offensive. Although this satisfies people, it is a known fact that people like to disagree and argue about something they feel strongly about. If everything in life was censored there wouldn’t be any humor in the television shows, movies, articles, or websites we visit for entertainment. Granted television shows today are far less censored and you have to watch, for example, what your children are watching. But I personally have no problem with the censorship that we have currently. I do agree that if you were to change something online that was previously posted that you should leave a note stating that something has been changed considering individuals who have previously read the first bit of information have been given false information and lead to believe something that may not be entirely true. This worries me because I feel as if though I cannot believe everything I read online. There are so many individuals tampering with information online that I find it difficult to trust the sources. It is inconvenient that in order to obtain legit information that you must research until you find a reputable source, but in times today websites can be hacked into and display false information. Although I do feel some TV programs use inappropriate language and in the future will only get worse. That leaves me worrying about my children and their generation having to grow up listening to outrageous language. Although this should not be an issue to parents, it will be and if that is the case then we will just have to have strict control over what the young ones get into and hope that there is a decent amount of censorship in the future so that future generations will not grow up corrupt.
ReplyDeleteI think censorship over the years has become far less in the United States then it once was. It is true that on television shows today you see things that ten or twenty years ago you probably would have not seen. Katie’s bring sup an interesting point with the car commercial comparison. AS much as we feel we have loose censorship here in America, compared to some counties we are very censored as a whole. I, myself, am a fan of a popular British television series called ‘Skins’ (yes, named after the slang term for rolling paper). While this show is completely accepted in Britain, to my knowledge it is not shown over in the U.S. If it was, and was uncensored, there would be hundreds of hundred of complaints.
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it is, if you don’t want your child to watch or hear something you find inappropriate or that should be censored, then don’t let them. If a parent feels they don’t want their children to hear something they need to be the ones to set up the boundaries because it won’t always be done for them with censorship in shows and other media aspects. There are shows and radio programmes that are child friendly for a reason.
On the topic of the blog article, I don’t see why an opinion had to be edited out, when it in fact, was someone opinion. In America we have fortunate enough to have a freedom of speech, we are allowed to form out own opinions and stick to them. Not everyone is going to agree with every opinion they come across. If you want to speak your opinion, you need to be willing to back it up when the time comes, no quickly go through and edit it out for the sake of those around you, for you have just angered more individuals. The Post may have been trying to be protective, but I hardly think it warranted the edit. Things are always going to change and opinions are going to be different. No ones going to completely agree on everything. It’s how the world is and we must accept it.
Censorship has definitely changed since the past. Many TV shows now allow swearing and sex scenes. When I grew up none of the shows I watched contained any of this. However, I think censorship shouldn’t even be used. Everything we experience is not even shown on TV or talked about on the radio. Children these days know way more than I did at their age and sometimes I wish I would have at an early age to be prepared for what real life is like. The sitcoms I watched growing up were about this perfect, happy family. That is not what it is like these days. Censorship takes away what real life is like. Shows like Family Guy and South Park have barley anything censored, and everyone laughs at what they make fun of. These shows actually educate people in a humorous way about what is going on in the world. Children don’t watch the news or read the newspaper anymore, so if everything “bad” in this world was censored these shows wouldn’t even exist. Back in the day the show Bevis and Butthead was appalling to most people. This show related towards Family Guy and South Park, which today is no big deal. I think that if parents want to censor what their children then watch then go right ahead. Most kids today know and say more swear words than I ever did growing up. Yeah, I think they learn them from television and the radio but who cares? Like parent don’t swear, most kids probably learn it from them anyway. If parents are so concerned with what their children watch, say, and do, then censor them yourselves. It shouldn’t be up to the radio and television to control what kids should and shouldn’t watch. Most likely if you ban them from watching one certain thing they are going to want to see it even more. so good luck parents in trying to keep everything censored from your kids, especially in today’s society.
ReplyDelete