Damn, get a grip.
I missed this post on its first pass through. Although I advocated Doug's having him on the show, it was never *my* position that Doug would be acting as a censor to choose not to have him on. That is called editorial judgement. I might have done it differently, if it were my show, but it is not 'censorship' for Doug not to have him on. Particularly when this subject had good enough media access, from prison, to run commercials on broadcast TV during the 1992 election cycle to decry his "political prisoner" status. (He went to jail for bank fraud, and regardless of why the State targeted him, I'm pretty confident that he *was* guilty of that. Anybody think *I* could get away with credut card fraud *and* get on TV?)
It is not censorship for Doug to deny LaR a forum on his show. It takes a lot more power than Doug has to censor anybody of LaR's 'stature'. Please -- get serious.
On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Adam Stevens wrote:
>
> >Well, it's your show, but I think you should let him on. It sounds
> >like you're deciding to censor him for political reasons (not wanting to
> >give him publicity) and that strikes a bad note with me given all we've been
> >through here in Berkeley these past few months.
>
> An editor/producer is under no obligation to offer balance. I make
> political judgments all the time in over content. I have on a lot
> more centrists & rightwingers than centrists & rightwingers have me
> on. I just don't want to promote the Lyndon LaRouche for president
> campaign.
>
> Doug
>
--
Joseph Noonan jfn1 at msc.com