Tuesday, January 31
A disclaimer
MEDIA, CENSORSHIP
Do not take anything I say as plain truth. Sometimes, I'll not remember something correctly, sometimes I'll work something out that is irrelevant or just plain wrong. I could even be a liar, for all you know. Judge the arguments first on their own merit, then hold evidence in suspicion until it can be confirmed or refuted. Clearly, my writing, in opinion and presentation, will have socialist bias. That means you should neither reject out of hand nor support without question whatever it is I have to say. That I am falliable shouldn't count against me, however, as much as it sounds like it ought to. If I say "The Atocha train bombings were the work of ETA, not Al-Quaeda", and I am wrong, that should, of course, count against me in a small way. But I am, after all, a private individual merely expressing an opinion, and writer and reader both understand that I am not claiming some authority or evidence. If a newspaper led with that story, then it would be a very serious matter - unless they had some evidence, they really should not be doing that: the premise of journalism is, at the very least, a kernel of truth. If a government announced that (particularly one with great political interest in the message being accepted), then they deserve to be voted out, as the grounds on which a government addresses the people whom it serves should be one of complete transparency and honesty, implying good information unless otherwise stated. (Incidentally, I'd just like to clarify that the PP were probably voted out by the Spanish people on these grounds, despite the misconception of a population gripped by cowardice as propogated by certain pro-war elements).
The problem with censorship (in which I include laws which prohibit fraud and lies) in the past, and the fear for the future, is that it will be used on the weak for the benefit of the powerful. Something the modern age is beginning to realise is that democracy does simply entail an absence of censorship and punishment, but also means punishment for lying. No one really thinks free speech allows us to fill in our tax forms with noughts in convenient places. Democracy cannot work if the elected lie to the electors - misleading them or depriving them of relevant information means the people have much less power to exercise their civil rights. When will the public know to kick out a bad government if the government tries to cover its tracks? We cannot simply rely on the media, either. Ignoring where the purse-strings lie with the media for a moment, even when they do manage to beat the government at its own game, the media must have enough public confidence to persuade. It's no use if we don't believe the media because they've been crying wolf too often. If the media claim to work for the public good, given the power they have (and like to demonstrate), they too must have a degree of accountability.
Let's take the WMD/BBC fiasco. The BBC aired a radio show in which Andrew Gilligan, their reporter, claimed to have evidence that the government had grossly and knowingly overstated their case. His own evidence was, as it happens, overstated, though it remains unclear whether he knew that his source was not in a position to say what he did. Anyway, he was sacked, and no-one in government took the slightest bit of blame. That reporters are held to account more than governments concerning honesty either indicates great integrity on the part of the BBC (although I do think it was unwise for the BBC to initially back Gilligan so unreservedly) or says something less complimentary about Blair's cabinet.
More recently, it seems that certain politicians have been sanitising their record on Wikipedia. Here we have a rather nice example of good and bad censorship. Clearly, while it is not illegal for Mr Meehan or his staff to have removed criticisms of him, it is certainly bad form from anyone, and sets a particularly insidious precedent given the considerable resources of the US government (and note that other political pages have been vandalised by the gentleman's colleagues). Thus, a good policy of censorship would for Wikipedia to deny editing rights to anyone coming from a .gov (or .mil) domain. I'm sure that taxpayers would rather they were paying government employees to do their jobs - and the employees themselves may still, of course access Wikipedia from home, so their personal freedom of speech is not impeded. Now, Wikipedia had temporarily banned the department, but as it stands, government institutions - from the US to Switzerland to China to Iran - are free to edit articles, as are, inicdentally, the Public Relations divisions of any company you'd like to name.
If we have any form of censorship, it should be exerted most forcefully on those in positions of power. The more credibility your view should have, or the more resources you have to propogate your view, the greater a responsibility you have not to abuse your right to free speech. It stands to reason that if a man in the pub declares that Princess Diana was killed by Scottish Nationalists, the only restriction that should be placed on him is that the barman should refuse to serve him any more alcohol. If the Pope or the BBC or the Scottish Labour Party made this claim, then the SNP, at the very least should be able to seek some sort of righting of the record, and the culprit should barred from reoffending (and possibly punished). In the meantime, we must work to correct errors which we can see and fill gaps which others might not.
MEDIA, CENSORSHIP
Do not take anything I say as plain truth. Sometimes, I'll not remember something correctly, sometimes I'll work something out that is irrelevant or just plain wrong. I could even be a liar, for all you know. Judge the arguments first on their own merit, then hold evidence in suspicion until it can be confirmed or refuted. Clearly, my writing, in opinion and presentation, will have socialist bias. That means you should neither reject out of hand nor support without question whatever it is I have to say. That I am falliable shouldn't count against me, however, as much as it sounds like it ought to. If I say "The Atocha train bombings were the work of ETA, not Al-Quaeda", and I am wrong, that should, of course, count against me in a small way. But I am, after all, a private individual merely expressing an opinion, and writer and reader both understand that I am not claiming some authority or evidence. If a newspaper led with that story, then it would be a very serious matter - unless they had some evidence, they really should not be doing that: the premise of journalism is, at the very least, a kernel of truth. If a government announced that (particularly one with great political interest in the message being accepted), then they deserve to be voted out, as the grounds on which a government addresses the people whom it serves should be one of complete transparency and honesty, implying good information unless otherwise stated. (Incidentally, I'd just like to clarify that the PP were probably voted out by the Spanish people on these grounds, despite the misconception of a population gripped by cowardice as propogated by certain pro-war elements).
The problem with censorship (in which I include laws which prohibit fraud and lies) in the past, and the fear for the future, is that it will be used on the weak for the benefit of the powerful. Something the modern age is beginning to realise is that democracy does simply entail an absence of censorship and punishment, but also means punishment for lying. No one really thinks free speech allows us to fill in our tax forms with noughts in convenient places. Democracy cannot work if the elected lie to the electors - misleading them or depriving them of relevant information means the people have much less power to exercise their civil rights. When will the public know to kick out a bad government if the government tries to cover its tracks? We cannot simply rely on the media, either. Ignoring where the purse-strings lie with the media for a moment, even when they do manage to beat the government at its own game, the media must have enough public confidence to persuade. It's no use if we don't believe the media because they've been crying wolf too often. If the media claim to work for the public good, given the power they have (and like to demonstrate), they too must have a degree of accountability.
Let's take the WMD/BBC fiasco. The BBC aired a radio show in which Andrew Gilligan, their reporter, claimed to have evidence that the government had grossly and knowingly overstated their case. His own evidence was, as it happens, overstated, though it remains unclear whether he knew that his source was not in a position to say what he did. Anyway, he was sacked, and no-one in government took the slightest bit of blame. That reporters are held to account more than governments concerning honesty either indicates great integrity on the part of the BBC (although I do think it was unwise for the BBC to initially back Gilligan so unreservedly) or says something less complimentary about Blair's cabinet.
More recently, it seems that certain politicians have been sanitising their record on Wikipedia. Here we have a rather nice example of good and bad censorship. Clearly, while it is not illegal for Mr Meehan or his staff to have removed criticisms of him, it is certainly bad form from anyone, and sets a particularly insidious precedent given the considerable resources of the US government (and note that other political pages have been vandalised by the gentleman's colleagues). Thus, a good policy of censorship would for Wikipedia to deny editing rights to anyone coming from a .gov (or .mil) domain. I'm sure that taxpayers would rather they were paying government employees to do their jobs - and the employees themselves may still, of course access Wikipedia from home, so their personal freedom of speech is not impeded. Now, Wikipedia had temporarily banned the department, but as it stands, government institutions - from the US to Switzerland to China to Iran - are free to edit articles, as are, inicdentally, the Public Relations divisions of any company you'd like to name.
If we have any form of censorship, it should be exerted most forcefully on those in positions of power. The more credibility your view should have, or the more resources you have to propogate your view, the greater a responsibility you have not to abuse your right to free speech. It stands to reason that if a man in the pub declares that Princess Diana was killed by Scottish Nationalists, the only restriction that should be placed on him is that the barman should refuse to serve him any more alcohol. If the Pope or the BBC or the Scottish Labour Party made this claim, then the SNP, at the very least should be able to seek some sort of righting of the record, and the culprit should barred from reoffending (and possibly punished). In the meantime, we must work to correct errors which we can see and fill gaps which others might not.
# posted by Phugebrins @ 12:45 
