Re: Fw: Editorial Judgement (was CENSORSHIP on WBZ RADIO)

[Dib9@aol.com]

In a message dated 98-07-17 15:02:22 EDT, Bump writes:

<< Some censorship is appropriate...especially in the workplace...and in
 the case of radio....where the 'product' is concerned.     
 
 BM >>

Good post.  I think your dictionary definition supports my point that true
Censorship requires official (aka government) action.

Just to clarify my position on this.  As I have stated a couple of time on
LTAR, my personal opinion is that there should be no government controls over
the content of radio and TV broadcasts.  I know some would consider this an
extreme position and many of my conservative friends would not agree, but I
think if people go too far the market will take care of it.  Public outcry and
the resulting advertiser back lash results when broadcasters go too far over
the line.  We don't need censors at the FCC to decide what goes on the air.
Their job should be to just make sure that broadcasters are broadcasting
within the technical requirements of their license.  (Something they do not do
a very good job of now.)

On the other hand, I have no problem with private action to try to change the
contents of broadcasts.  Community reaction through letter writing, phone
calls, protests, and advertiser boycotts are all appropriate in a free society
and ultimately more effecient at regulating the content of broadcasting.  It
is also appropraite for management to step in when they think things have gone
to far, like Peter Casey did at WBZ.  I would not have made the same decison,
but I absolutely believe the decision was his to make.

Dan Billings
Bowdoinham, Maine

------------------------------