>I disagree with this assessment. I do not think that there is any
>system-wide censorship in the US, albeit of course individuals outlets may
>be selective in what they print. That holds for The Nations as well as for
>the WSJ. The fact remains that virtually anything - no matter how
>outrageous - can be published in this country (albeit not by every outlet),
>or for that matter televised via community access TV. If cretin types of
>messages seem to be underrepresented, this has something to do with
>popularity of these messages rather than their censorship. Let's face it
>Charles, the views posted to this list, as well most progressive views,
>even though expressed by respectable figures like Kucinich (who btw would be
>considered center-left in Europe), are not very popular here - as
>demonstrated by the very low voter support for progressive candidates, or
>low circulation of the progressive magazines and publications.
You're overlooking self-censorship, which happens all the time at mainstream newspapers and magazines. Reporters know what editors will reject, editors know what will cause them trouble with publishers, and publishers know what will cause trouble with advertisers. And then there's the unwillingness to offend sources - print something critical of the White House, and you'll be frozen out of the whisper circuit. A perfect example was that Irish TV interview with Bush about which I posted an article here a couple of months ago. The WH press operation was incensed that the reporter asked W some difficult questions. The norm in Ireland, very rare here.
Low circ of progressive pubs: The Nation's circ is at record levels. It recently surpassed National Review to become the most popular journal of opinion in the US, and it's way ahead of The New Republic and The Weekly Standard.
Doug