Chicken Little and the News

In the perpetual tempests that arise in the sea of politics, argument meets counterargument and every voice screams to make itself heard over the others. In the last two decades the cacophony of political debate has become increasingly less civil, a point Gordon B. Hinckley makes repeatedly in his 1998 book, Standing for Something. One aspect of America’s “lost and forgotten manners” is a growing trend of insensitivity and intolerance for different viewpoints in the broadcast media (88). Very often, the battle cry of the pundits is “Censorship!” Extemists on both ends of the political spectrum, when their polemic viewpoints are questioned or criticized, squeal “Censorship!” The word is used so often and so indiscriminately in the broadcast media that it has lost much of its impact. Disagreement among peers is not censorship. A particular bias in the news of one broadcaster is not censorship. Censorship is the deliberate suppression by a governmental body of normally protected forms of expression deemed objectionable

By this definition, most of the incidents that some squealer labels "censorship" simply are not, because in most of those cases nothing is suppressed. For censorship to occur, the expression must be kept out of people's hands, eyes, or sight. This suppression, furthermore, must occur as the result of a deliberate decision. Overlooking something is not the same as suppressing it. The requirement of "normally protected forms of free speech" is necessary to the definition as well; historically, materials that have been deemed "obscene" (a definitional problem in itself) have not received the protection normally endowed by the First Amendment. Finally, the suppression must have the force of law behind it, so the act of censoring is always the work of a governmental body. A corporation can try to suppress something, but it cannot enact legislation to make people comply.

On December 16^th, 1941, only nine days after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt established the Office of Censorship, naming AP executive news editor Byron Price its director (Stephens 78). On January 15, 1942, Price’s office distributed a document entitled Code of Wartime Practices for the American Press (Emery 342). Among other things, this document urged news agencies to avoid printing issues of national security such as troop and ship movements, and it firmly suggested that publishers not print demoralizing war news, such as photographs of dead American soldiers (Emery 343). Price’s office, which employed 14,462 people between 1942 and 1945, oversaw compliance of this “voluntary” effort by the news media (Emery 343). This is an example of censorship because it meets each of the definition’s requirements. Things that would otherwise be protected by the Bill of Rights, such as news photographs and legitimate news stories, were deliberately suppressed. The Office of Censorship was acting on the authority of the US President, making it unquestionably a governmental body. Even though the effort was considered voluntary, many publishers “volunteered” out of fear of the consequences for non-compliance. Some material, such as shipping schedules or troop movements, was deemed objectionable on military grounds because foreknowledge of those events might endanger US troops. Other material, such as casualty lists and photographs, were deemed objectionable on moral grounds because the reporting of such information might reduce civilian morale. This example meets each of the definitional requirements from at least one perspective.

Most of the incidents that are branded censorship fail to meet the definitional criteria. One example is the case of The Tin Drum in Oklahoma county, Oklahoma. On June 20, 1997, members of a family advocacy group, Oklahomans for Children and Families (OCAF) borrowed from the public library a copy of the 1979 Academy Award winning foreign film, The Tin Drum (McCarthy). OCAF members handed over the film to Oklahoma City police, arguing that a scene in the film was child pornography (McCarthy). Five days later, Judge Richard Freeman ruled that two scenes in the film were child pornography, as defined by Oklahoma statutes (McCarthy). The Oklahoma City police then confiscated the only other known copy of the film in Oklahoma county from a customer of Blockbuster video. The very next day, copies of The Tin Drum became available on theUniversity of Oklahoma Campus, seventeen miles (and one county) south of Judge Freeman’s jurisdiction. Within the next two years, OU’s 25,000 students would have multiple opportunities to see the film as part of classes and other campus activities. As an instructor, I showed the film to over 100 students.

This case appears to match the definitional requirements for censorship. Although OCAF members are not a governmental body—despite what they might think—the ruling came from a judge and was enforced by the city police. The film was a type of expression normally protected under the constitutional guarantee of free speech; it had, after all, won an Academy Award, strongly suggesting that it possesses some artistic value. OCAF and Judge Freeman based their actions on moral grounds; the film allegedly violated an existing law. Thus each of the definitional criteria are met except one: suppression. Judge Freeman’s ruling was only binding on Oklahoma county, and was only enforceable for known copies of the film, such as the ones owned by Blockbuster video and the public library. Any citizen of Oklahoma county could go to the OU campus or any of the video stores in Norman and Moore to legally buy or rent a copy of the film. Those same citizens could attend any of the several public showings of the film on the OU campus. While Freeman’s ruling made obtaining the film slightly more difficult than before, it failed to suppress the film. In fact the ruling had the opposite effect; without the ruling, The Tin Drum likely would have languished in obscurity in the library’s collection. The case is not censorship.

Finally we come to a borderline case, one which has caused many extremists to scream “Censorship!” In September 1996, Wal-Mart corporation announced that it would refuse to carry Sheryl Crow’s upcoming album that contained the song “Love is a Good Thing” (Errico). Lyrics in the song openly criticize Wal-Mart corporation, accusing the retailer of selling firearms to children. Wal-Mart’s decision set the various pundits of the entertainment industry running about like Chicken Little. A&M Record executives estimated that the corporation’s decision would cost Crow sales in excess of 400,000 albums (Boehlert). On its face, this case fails to fit the definition of censorship. Wal-Mart is not the government. It certainly is not the only place to buy music; indeed, the controversy probably sparked sales of Crow’s album. The song was deemed objectionable because it openly criticized Wal-Mart, not on moral, political, or military grounds.

There is, however, an argument for censorship in this case. Wal-Mart corporation is unquestionably an industry leader in music sales, with the largest volume of CD sales in the world. Wal-Mart is a de facto leader of the entire retail industry—other retail chains follow the Wal-martian’s example in their day-to day business practices. Although the corporation has no authority to pass laws, its industry position gives it influence over other retail chains similar to that of a government. Thus it can be argued that this case meets the first requirement of the definition. In certain markets, such as the rural midwest, Wal-Mart’s ruthless business practices have made them the only retailer for miles around. If the Wal-Mart in Guymon, OK refuses to sell Crow’s album, the album is effectively suppressed for all of the Oklahoma panhandle. On a regional scale, this case has the same effect as if a government had banned the album.

Most accusations of censorship in America are unfounded for two reasons. First, governmental agencies are (rightly) loath to take on first amendment issues. Second, the controversy generated over any attempted censorship generally creates an outcome opposite to the intended one. The word “censorship” is more often than not the cry of America’s fear-mongerers, and as a result it becomes just another in a long line of boogeymen designed to 1) keep us in line and 2) sell us more crap. The overuse of the word has unfortunate consequences, because censorship represents a greater danger to a free society than any of the other perceived threats, like terrorism, that the media smack us with every day. Overuse of the word will eventually inure us to it, so that we may not recognize the genuine article when it arrives.

Works Cited

Boehlert, Eric. “Wal-Mart Eating Crow.” Rolling Stone. Online. Available. <http://rollingstone.com>. 21 July 03.

Emery, Michael, Edwin Emery, and Nancy L. Roberts. The Press and America: An Interpretive History of the Mass Media. 9^th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000.

Errico, Marcus. “Wal-Mart Bans Sheryl Crow’s Next Album.” E! Online. 10 Sept. 1996. Online. Available. < http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,159,00.html>. 21 July 03.

Hinckley, Gordon B. Standing for Something: Ten Neglected Virtues That Will Heal Our Hearts and Homes. Pittsburgh: Three Rivers, 2001.

McCarthy, Jamie. “Oklahoma and The Tin Drum.” The Ethical Spectacle. Online. Available. <http://www.spectacle.org/997/mcarth.html>. 21 July 03.

Stephens, Mitchell. A History of News.Ft.Worth: Harcourt, 1997.