Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 / QGSI 2.0; site qubix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!idi!qubix!lab
From: lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: RE: mod.singles censorship (censorship can be good!)
Message-ID: <1436@qubix.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Oct-84 13:59:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: qubix.1436
Posted: Wed Oct 17 13:59:41 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Oct-84 19:26:01 EDT
References: <466@hogpc.UUCP>
Organization: Quadratix ... Quartix
Lines: 24

> --Bruce Burger {...ihnp4!}hogpc!btb
> Do you read newspapers?  Watch TV news?  These media -- and
> mod.singles -- are SELECTIVE, not "censored."  To "censor" means to
> specifically delete something because it's objectionable
> (paraphrasing Webster's).  Mod.singles, on the other hand, will
> (I think) SELECT things bacause they're of interest.  Of course,
> selection is the same as censorship if you don't trust the selectors.

Selectivity and censorship are opposite sides of the same coin. TV news,
newspapers, and the other media are censored whether you realize it or
not. The question is simply "Who does the censoring?" Rather than the
government doing the censoring, the media does it itself - and is very
effective at warping reality. The sad point is that the public has
become so dependent on the *major* media, that bypassing the censorship
is virtually impossible. You can gripe by writing letters to the media,
but they are under no obligation even to acknowledge them. By hiding
behind the First Amendment, they are essentially unaccountable.

The bottom line for mod.* is "how accountable is the moderator?"
-- 
		The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
		{amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab

You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.