The issue of censorship has plagued U.S. mass media from its point of inception due to pressures from government, businesses, and various private interest groups. From the censorship of literature such as “Huckleberry Finn” by Mark Twain for the use of the “n” word to the Television censorship of Elvis Presley’s hips on the Ed Sullivan Show in 1956; these are only a couple of the many examples of censorship throughout mass media. The fact that “Huckleberry Finn” is “No. 5 on the American Library Association’s ‘100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-1999’” leads some to question whether or not there is censorship in the mass media today (www.hno.harvard.edu…To answer this question one must first define “censorship” in modern terms. According to Encarta, modern censorship, “refers to the examination of books, periodicals, plays, films, television and radio programs, news reports, and other communication media for the purpose of altering or suppressing parts thought to be objectionable or offensive” (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559522/Censorship.html). This definition poses more questions than it answers; the biggest of which includes: Who has the control over what the public does and does not has access to?

The short answer is gatekeepers who are, “any person (or group) who has control over what material eventually reaches the public” (Dominick, 2007 p.15). According to Berlo’s Model of Communication the four basic elements of communication include: a source, a message, a channel, and a receiver (http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/). Without the channel element, a message has no way to reach its intended receiver and since the channel of mass media has multiple gatekeepers, there are many points along the line of communication in which a message can be censored. Examples of censors or gatekeepers in print mass media include: the city editor who decides what gets covered, the reporter who decides what to emphasize and omit in coverage, the copy-editor, and the managing editor (Dominick, 2007 p.231). Since everybody theoretically has a boss, the bigger question is, who do the media gatekeepers at the top answer to? Media managers often succumb to pressure from multiple sources including: the government, private interest groups, and private businesses.

The most prominent example of the government censorship of media is during the era of McCarthyism. Many working professionals were affected by their alleged communist connections, the most famous of which were known as the “Hollywood Blacklist”. Ring Larder Jr., famous author and screenwriter, knows too well about the affects of being on the Hollywood Blacklist because, “he was one of the famous ‘Hollywood Ten’” (Stickney 1). Larder’s refusal to reveal whether he or other writers were communist to the House Committee on Un-American Activities landed him a one year jail sentence and when he was released went “17 years without a screen credit” (Stickney 1). Although he and other writers went underground writing scripts under false names, many never made the return to the entertainment business.

Ring Larder Jr. also discusses the role of private interest groups, namely the Christian Coalition, in the censoring of media. Still during the time of the blacklist in 1954, Larder unsuccessfully attempted to publish a book he had written while in prison. He was ineffective in securing an American publisher not only because he was blacklisted, but because the book, “made fun of some of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church” (Stickney 1). He was correct in his assumptions because one prominent editor confided in Larder, “how large a part of his company’s business its textbook department was” and feared that the Church might ban, “the use of their textbooks in parochial schools throughout the country” if they published Larder’s book (Stickney 1). The fear of profit lost from parochial schools indicates the high authority of censorship that Interest Groups such as the Christian Coalition hold of mass media.

1996 marked a year of change in the deregulation of mass media and with the passage of the ‘Telecommunications Act’; restraints on media ownership were lifted allowing for consolidation and the birth of the mega-merger. The act was designed to promote competition among Radio, Television, and Newspapers and contend with newly introduced competition from the Internet. While the FCC’s Act intentions were to protect the mass media business model, it changed it completely.

The disadvantages are ever-present and they are mainly geared toward the consumers because when one company owns the majority of channels in which a consumer gets their medium, the diversity that was promised to quell fears about consolidation becomes essentially non-existent. These once local stations have transformed into transnational corporations that may have a conflict of interest regarding a story because they have a higher chance of being affiliated with the source of a story. These relationships pressure media managers to minimize any conflicts of interest that may arise, and this pressure from the top down which has led to more and more self-censoring among journalists who fear loss of jobs from perusing a controversial issue.

This issue of self-censoring is something that plagues every traditional form of mass media: Newspapers, Television, and Radio. While every journalist essentially invokes self-censorship by adhering to journalistic ethics, this is not the type of self-censorship I refer to. This type is a forced self-censorship that occurs from the top down because, “When they are told a particular story is ‘boring, ‘too complicated’ or ‘takes too long to do,’ they get the message and end up censoring themselves” (Lieberman 10).

Stories that may be seen as conflicting with the interests of a corporate parent or business affiliate have often been changed or suppressed to show the business in a more favorable light. An example of this is when NBC’s Tom Brokaw called the Patriot missile, “the missile that put the Iraqi scud in its place” during the Gulf War (Cohen 43). Not only was this a fallacy, but Brokaw fails to mention that GE, the corporate parent of NBC, was responsible for the production of the Patriot missile. This is an example of the line which has been crossed by huge media conglomerates leaving one to wonder why the FCC even exists.

Newer forms of mass media such the Internet have not been affected in the same ways that more traditional forms of mass media such as Newspapers, Television, and Radio are affected. This is because the traditional model of communication has essentially changed. In accordance with Berlo’s Model, the receiver has now also become the source and the Internet is the new channel of communication. There is no copy editor to send a story to, a managing editor to decide what angle of a story to up play or downplay, or a physical paper to be distributed. In fact, many bloggers now serve as media-watchdogs to ensure that traditional mass media journalists are doing their job — “to inform”.

That is not to say that censorship in newer forms of mass media does not exist, but it is not the same self-censorship that exists in traditional mass media. Service providers and search engines can still act as gatekeepers by blocking access to particular websites, programs, or information. For example, in 2007 Verizon Wireless blocked the request of Naral Pro-Choice American, an abortion rights group, to register users for text messages even though other service providers have agreed to this request. Legal experts say that nothing can be done to change this because, “The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages”, giving private companies such as Verizon the ability to turn down programs that “may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users”. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/us/27verizon.html?hp).

The example above demonstrates that although censorship in newer mass media may be implemented in different ways, it still occurs throughout all types of mass media, both traditional and non-traditional. Either way, Federal regulators of mass media businesses need to tighten restraints regarding ownership. This regulation is not only important — it is necessary, because without it self-censorship will only continue to rise and democracy will continue to shrink.

References:

Cohen, Jeff. Interview. Multinational Monitor. July. 2002: 41-44.

Dominick, Joseph R. The Dynamics of Mass Communication: Media in the Digital Age.
9th ed. New York: McGraw. 2007.

Lieberman, Trudy. “Censorship That Dare Not Speak its Name.” The Nation 23 June
1997: 10.

Liptak, Adam. “Verizon Blocks Messages of Abortion Rights Group.” New York Times
27, Sept. 2007: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/us/27verizon.html?hp.

Stickney, Brandon M. “How Religion and Big Money Censor the Media.” Free Inquiry
18.3 (1998): 1-2.

Comments are closed.