Self-censorship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Censorship
Part of the series on

By region
Algeria Australia Bhutan Canada P. R. China Cuba East Germany France Germany India Iran Republic of Ireland Myanmar Pakistan Portugal Samoa Singapore South Asia Soviet Union Taiwan (R.O.C.) Thailand Tunisia Turkey United Kingdom United States
By media
Advertisements Anime Books Banned films Re-edited films Internet Music Video games
Other
Book burning Bleep censor Content-control software Corporate censorship Under fascist regimes Pixelization Postal censorship Prior restraint In religion Self-censorship Tape delay Whitewashing This box: view • talk • edit

Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one's own blog, book(s), film(s), or other works, out of deference to the sensibilities of others without an authority directly pressuring one to do so. Self-censorship is often practiced by film producers, film directors, publishers, news anchors, musicians, or authors.

In authoritarian countries, creators of artworks may remove material that their government might find controversial for fear of sanction by their governments. In democratic countries, self-censorship can also occur, particularly to be more politically correct or apply to laws restricting free speech. News media are often accused of self-censorship because news media can face serious backlash for controversial or hasty reporting. On following this public demand, news media have been accused of "not taking any risks." For example, certain organizations (Media Matters for America, FAIR, Democracy Now!, and the ACLU) have raised concerns about news broadcasting stations (notably FOX News) censoring their own content to be less controversial when reporting on the War on Terror. However, this is not always attributed to self-censorship; there have been attempts by the authorities to pressure news organizations to withhold particular public information in the name of security [1]. There have also been instances beginning with the Gulf War and in subsequent conflicts, where journalists have actively sought censorship advice from military authorities in order to prevent the inadvertent revelation of military secrets.

"Self-censorship" can also be found in scientific publications. Usually, a scientist can feel discouraged from releasing their findings because of a popular ideology or political agenda. Examples of self-censorship in scientific publications that have been criticized as politically motivated include scientists under the Third Reich withholding findings that disagreed with the commonly-held beliefs in differences between races, or the refusal of these scientists under Hitler to support General Relativity (which got the reputation as "Jewish science"). Economists under the communist regime in the former Soviet Union would never voice their criticisms of a socialized economy; this is a clear example of self-censorship. More recently, certain scientists have withheld their findings related to climate changes caused by pollution and to endangered species [2] [3] [4]. Professor Heinz Klatt claims that political correctness has resulted in widespread self-censorship on topics like homosexuality, (learning) disabilities, Islam, as well as sexual, racial, and genetic differences. [5]

Taste and decency are also areas which often raise questions on self-censorship. Debates involving images or footage of murder, terrorism, war and massacres cause complaints as to the purpose to which they are put. Editors will frequently censor these images to avoid charges of prurience, shock tactics or invasion of privacy.

[edit] Online resources

Self-censorship is an important issue with the on-line news resources on which large parts of Wikipedia depends and is one of the justifications for including an "accessdate" with every link. It is taken for granted that articles on blogs can be seamlessly re-edited after people have read them, because the standard software allows it. However, since the archives of news stories held at online news sites such as BBC News or New York Times are under the control of the publisher, there is a strong temptation to withdraw or entirely delete all references to an informative article when its presence is perceived to be harmful to their reputation or commercial interests.

Examples include The Guardian withdrawing its extended interview and profile of Noam Chomsky in 2005 which was widely seen as a smear[6] and subsequently apologized for by the editors,[7] and the deletion of a 2006-12-21 Op-Ed piece by Daniel Johnson (journalist) in the New York Sun. There are many more notable examples.

Sometimes the old article is available in search engine caches. The website New Sniffer attempts to detect all changes that occur in the articles by regularly downloading articles and comparing with older copies. For the purposes of greater public understanding and accountability, it would be preferable if changes to articles that had already been widely read were noted in the articles, so they did not conflict with what people thought they had remembered when they went to look it up.