On the idea of "self-censorship"...
Apr. 12th, 2003 10:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexpgpI lied about going away and doing something else. I did a little surfing before putting up the computer and ran across the following:
What prompted me to write about it in my journal was my reaction to her statement, to the effect that, in discussing a shoot with Roseann Barr, the latter's decision not to wallow in mud was "self-censorship" that was "more heinous than that imposed by governments and institutions" (as written in my journal on 20 July 1991).
The reason I made the note was that I vehemently disagreed. A decision to not wallow in mud was not self-censorship. Nor is a decision to not shout down a speaker with whom one disagrees, along with about a zillion other acts.
On the other hand, what Scott Ritter is talking about is true self-censorship, in my opinion, and it is just as heinous as any that could be imposed by a government. Hell, the CNN news executive who went on record with revelations of how his network did not cover the news in Iraq at least could point to specific individuals his organization was trying to protect (although I think CNN was probably more interested in retaining its reputation as a world-class news organization and in maintaining its "presence" in Iraq).
What's Ritter's excuse, other than his pathetic line about "waging peace"? (I cannot help but imagine him in the analogous role of a mob mouthpiece, who talks on and on about working for "a legitimate businessman.")
And with that, I'm really outta here.
Cheers...
"The prison in question was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children - toddlers up to pre-adolescents - whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace."This reminded me of a note I made a long time ago in a paper journal, about a comment made by photographer Annie Leibovitz, who has taken a number of well-known photos, such as the one of a naked John Lennon coiled around Yoko, and of a naked and seven-months pregnant Demi Moore.
- Scott Ritter, Time Magazine
What prompted me to write about it in my journal was my reaction to her statement, to the effect that, in discussing a shoot with Roseann Barr, the latter's decision not to wallow in mud was "self-censorship" that was "more heinous than that imposed by governments and institutions" (as written in my journal on 20 July 1991).
The reason I made the note was that I vehemently disagreed. A decision to not wallow in mud was not self-censorship. Nor is a decision to not shout down a speaker with whom one disagrees, along with about a zillion other acts.
On the other hand, what Scott Ritter is talking about is true self-censorship, in my opinion, and it is just as heinous as any that could be imposed by a government. Hell, the CNN news executive who went on record with revelations of how his network did not cover the news in Iraq at least could point to specific individuals his organization was trying to protect (although I think CNN was probably more interested in retaining its reputation as a world-class news organization and in maintaining its "presence" in Iraq).
What's Ritter's excuse, other than his pathetic line about "waging peace"? (I cannot help but imagine him in the analogous role of a mob mouthpiece, who talks on and on about working for "a legitimate businessman.")
And with that, I'm really outta here.
Cheers...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-04-12 10:41 pm (UTC)