> Doug:
>
> > 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.
>
> Actually, I was well aware of it, but I still consider it a part of
> source-specific censorship. If I work, say, for the NYT and I have a story
> that I know my editor will reject, I can still publish it elsewhere even
> under a pen name to protect my job. I am not denying that censorship via
> editorial policy or self-censorship is not a serious issue - but I do not
> view it as a problem as long as alternative venues for publishing the
> censored views exist.
>
> Wojtek
So if Billy's zine in Milwaukee will publish the story instead of the NYT's then in your words "I do not view it (self-censorship) as a problem"? That seems kind of bizarre. You can't just take a story you wrote for one newspaper and just have it printed any where you wish. Your employment will probably be terminated or at the least your future works will be more difficult to get printed. Pretending you have this option is totally unrealistic.
John Thornton