Censorship? Really?

2 November 2009

As I've been reading some of the controversy and discussion of the Obama administration's so-called war with Fox News, one part of the discussion frustrated me immensely.

It wasn't the hypocrisy of the coverage, though that certainly was irritating. When the Bush administration made similar claims about MSNBC a few years ago, the accusation had nowhere near the same level of controversy or media coverage. It annoyed me that this was forgotten, but these things often are.

Nor was it the hyperbole with which the situation was described: in discussions of the "war", I've heard the Obama administration was compared to Chavez, Stalin, and the Nazis. Ridiculous, to be certain, but not truly frustrating.

What frustrated me most was the total misuse of the word "censorship." The Obama Administration has been accused of censoring the Fox News Channel, something that is manifestly untrue.

Ok, so strictly speaking, the word is accurate, if and only if you take the meaning of "censor" to mean to admonish or criticise, a literal if rarely-used meaning. And I suppose, if you take that meaning, and that meaning alone, one could accuse the Obama administration of censoring Fox News. But it's hard to imagine anyone seriously making the argument that when someone hears "Obama Administration censors Fox News", they think the administration simply criticised them. The problem, of course, is that few would understand the meaning of the word in that way, especially in the realm of politics.

"Censorship" isn't a word devoid of meaning or context. Used the way it has been by much of the press in this situation, to "censor" is far more likely to mean to suppress or delete information. This practice, of course, is one of the oldest forms of political oppression. For many, censorship is associated with totalitarian rule, with the suppression of democracy, with silencing the minority, or just silencing unwanted voices. And the Obama administration has not silenced Fox News

Yes, the Obama administration called Fox News a partisan organization. Yes, they openly acknowledged they would not treat them the same way as a straightforward news network. That might not by wise, but it's not censorship

The White House did not censor the Fox News Channel. They did not rob them of their first amendment protection. They did not prevent the Fox News Channel from attending White House press conferences. They even promised to continue providing White House staff to be interviewed on the Fox News Channel, though possibly not as frequently as the network would prefer.

And the Fox News Channel has certainly not been silent. The ferocity with which they've condemned the White House is evidence enough of their continued freedom. There's no talk, anywhere, of limiting the Fox News Channel's voice. There is no ban. There is no suppression.

There are certainly interesting issues to talk about around the so-called "war on Fox", but using the term "censor" in these discussions is both misleading and dangerous. So lets call it what it is or, more accurately, what it isn't: the White House has not censored the Fox News Channel.

Tags: Censorship, Fox News Channel, Obama Administration