During the second world war the war newspapers and letters from soldiers were censored - the reader would find large black patches where material had been removed. Everyone understood what was happening, and the reason for it. These days material released by spy agencies has black patches everywhere. Freedom of information requests for government documents will almost certainly result in masses of black patches 'in the government interest' (I'm sorry, that should read 'in the public interest').
Now so far so bad. There is properly outrage when requests for routine material result in documents that are heavily censored. And there is equal concern when a government leader or member will refuse to comment on something because of 'security concerns', or will claim that it is not 'in the national interest' to reveal some routine matter. This kind of censorship is becoming more and more common as politics, as played by the Right, becomes more and more ruthless.
But at least in these cases the public knows that it is being denied information. A wife or mother in World War Two would be aware that a sentence saying 'we are about to sail for the beaches of Normandy' was quite likely to have thick black ink poured on it, and not be too concerned about it, being able to read the bits that said that Johnny was eating well and missing her, and knowing that the missing bits really were secret and of no concern to her.
But of much more concern is the modern censorship of the corporate media. There are huge gaps in the modern television news bulletin. The lack of detail on climate change as it is happening; the lack of information about what is actually happening in Iraq, day to day, outside the Green Zone; suppression of corporate activities in Third World countries; proper analysis of the effects of Private Equity takeovers and Free Trade Agreements; discussion of the condition of the poor and homeless; environmental issues like habitat loss and pollution; tax discussions that don't talk about burdens. There is not just suppression of information but of alternative voices - a panel can appear full, but be full only of the neocons. The gaps are composed of historic context, current situation, future implications, for any story that is presented. Our news is the equivalent of the soldier being well fed with clean socks, but with no information that he is involved in the D-Day landings. And the problem is that, far from having silence, or black ink, to make the viewer or reader aware of the censorship that is being imposed by the corporate owners of the press, the holes are filled with rubbish about Paris Hilton, or bears climbing poles, or car crashes, or the British royals, or secret movie promotions, or hot dog eating contests. The news appears seamless, the bulletin appears full, but it is full only because the censorship is disguised by the equivalent of black ink, or a silent newsreader. Paris Hilton is the sound of silence.
So perhaps in future discussions about rebuilding media that can inform the public about what is really going on in their lives: what their government is really doing; what that corporate giant is really up to; what our foreign policy really involves, we could look at an honesty provision. If you don't want to tell the public something, fine, but you must leave a gap in your news or a blank on your front page so that they know they are not being told. If you have a biased panel, fine, but you must leave some empty chairs where representatives of the Green movement, or socialists, or unions, might have been. Mmm, could be a lot of totally silent news bulletins, and totally blank newspapers, and empty pundit tables, until the media decide that it is actually important to carry out their role of informing the public.
Oliver Wendell Holmes said "It is the province of knowledge to speak and it is the province of wisdom to listen". See if I write with knowledge AND wisdom on The Watermelon Blog.