The Censorship Review
May 12, 2008 by chillinatthecabstand
Since the school year’s winding down, I thought I’d a do a quick post detailing all the times I got censored writing for the school paper – i.e. in every issue I wrote in. Our paper’s pretty good, and it’s not to knock the staff, but I just thought it would be fun to look back on. You’ll notice that most of the things that got censored were pretty mean-spirited, irrelevant, or insensitive and probably should have been taken out.
Issue 4: I wrote a letter about how racist a staff editorial in the previous issue was, saying “The only Black stereotype not in the staff editorial is fried chicken.” It was removed because the school wanted to keep my bitter joke out because it mentioned a black stereotype – fried chicken. The copy editor later told me it was a childish line, anyway.
Issue 5: I didn’t write anything for this issue – I was recruited for the staff after my letter to the editor and I arrived too late to get an assignment.
Issue 6: Not allowed to call “Omaha (The Movie)” a stereotypical portrayal of our great city. I believe my review was censored a little, too, but I don’t remember how.
Issue 7: The line “Obama supporters will especially appreciate this book, as it will surely become to them what the bible is to fundamentalists” became “…It will be key to understanding their favorite politician.”
Issue 8: I cannot say that the Bush administration has been “run into the ground by critics.” Changed to “come under fire.”
Issue 9: Cannot say that “88 Minutes” has a “homophobic bent.”
On the flipside, let’s look at what I got away with…
Issue 4: Calling the newspaper staff I later joined racist.
Issue 5: Not doing any real work.
Issue 6: Calling a movie character a stereotypical slut.
Issue 7: Saying the best part of “Be Kind, Rewind” was the “magnetized urine.”
Issue 8: Call “10,000 BC” an “orgy of absurdities.”
Issue 9: Comparing “88 Minutes” to the Klan propaganda film “Birth of a Nation.”
And to many more! lol…
when does issue nine come out
Is that really “censorship” or just good editing? I mean, in terms of journalism, “Not allowed to call “Omaha (The Movie)” a stereotypical portrayal of our great city” really says nothing. But if you examine those stereotypes, that gets into something worthwhile. As an editor, I never would have gone with the Bible/fundamentalist analogy because it seems irrelevant, and as for “88 Minutes,” I would have wanted cited examples of any “homophobic bent.”
The point I’m trying to bear toward is that it’s more worthwhile to show readers what’s going on and let them draw “a homophobic bent” from the observations you recount, rather than just telling readers what’s going on. The former is what journalists do; the latter is what FoxNews does.
Chill: Congrats on doing nothing in issue 5!
Will: Kind of a harsh critique on a high school newspaper don’t you think? (Not to minimize your work, of course, chill)
Will: Yes, I know, I think I actually said that somewhere in the post. Let me look…