Why did I write "SLANTED: How the news media taught us to love censorship and hate journalism"?
And what can you get out of it?
Order "Slanted: How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism" by Sharyl Attkisson today at Harper Collins, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books a Million, IndieBound, Bookshop!
Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI
Your essays and videos are a blast of fresh air we all need to wake up out of our news-narrative comas. Thanks. As we head deeper back into the swamp next year, I foresee my increased need to watch and read your work. Thank you for all you do.
===================
Sharyl [[ forgive me]] :
My clarifying re-write of your above sentence, follows :
“How the [[ Libertine/Liberal ]] news media taught us to
hate [[ logic-oriented Fathers’ ]] censorship [[ think of the
sound logic of censoring certain sex-based instructions
to 6-year-old children; or soundly, logically censoring
sexually deviant pornography from at-large society ]]
and hate of [[ that non-emotional, that-logical-father-
knows-best, fact-based ]] journalism.”
Re Majority’s Protective Censorship in, say, the 1950s—
that’s D E M O C R A C Y at work!, as that term means:
“majority rule.”
No?
-Rick
P.S.
A minority of one - Hugh Hefner - and a group-minority - the Supreme Court -
negated the right of the Christian majority to keep its morality-premised/-based
society.
Then, Nixon’s ill-fated commission on pornography, a minority of so-called “experts,” concluded:
“No harm comes from public porn venues”—another tragic bashing of Christian moral standards.
This scribbler explained all of the above in an essay,
“Censorship! Everyone does it! And all the time!”
P.P.S.
Copy this to paper, then remove it from your page :
©1994
C E N S O R S H I P! Every Body Does It! All the Time!
We Americans practice censorship all the time by either government mandate ("we the people") or by self-censorship through social consensus, where the former naturally springs from the latter in a democracy, and where the latter is product of common agreement among citizens on what is socially appropriate at any given time and/or place.
We all practice censorship--all of us. We censor ourselves regarding certain modes of dress, speech and social etiquette, and we - we the people - often petition our representatives to pass laws for censoring those who refuse to comply with social convention or who exceed the bounds of good taste and propriety. Both the self-applied censorship and the government-sanctioned censorship are necessary for maintaining good civil society.
Those who fight against censorship are
whining hypocrites for denying their
own threshold for triggering censorship.
How many of them would shelve in public
libraries the available underground
books on how to have sex with animals
or how to molest children?
Many of today's "acceptable" but pornographic books were once considered as abhorrent as these new arrivals.
Where Does the Tolerance End?
When social chaos reigns? And they're weak-minded in their ignorance of the absolute necessity for the majority of community members to control both the place and time for allowing expression of certain kinds of behavior and materials (a process called "democratic government")—materials such as certain books and movies and music which undermine the general welfare and domestic tranquility of the community (read the purpose for which the Constitution was established, as set out in the Preamble).
Such hypocrisy and weak-mindedness were apparent September 26th, after the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors in Virginia scored the Library Board of Trustees for simply considering, at parents' request, a restrictive placement of certain sexually explicit books and magazines—so that minor children wouldn't have access to them.
The collective Orwellian mind of the
supervisors ignorantly concluded that
such a restriction "trespasses on the
rights of parents
to supervise the
education of their
children, and is a
serious infraction
by government of
parental rights."
Incredibly, the supervisors appear interested in protecting the parents' right to govern their children’s OPPORTUNITY TO BE EXPOSED to pornography in the library, as they insanely argue: that if pornographic materials are hidden in the library, parents would be denied the right to catch their children perusing the easily unshelved material.
It's like saying that locking up child
molesters deprives parents of their
right to govern kids' out-of-home
activities, which might include missing
an opportunity to help the kids fend
off child molesters.
What a Bunch of Dolts!
The controversy began two years ago when some parents complained about an availability in libraries of the "Washington Blade"; a vulgar rag for homosexuals.
Children were reading the explicit ads and personals.
Attempts to have the filth removed were unsuccessful, and it remains in the county's 22 libraries under the auspices of the Board of Library Trustees, who appear more interested in doing the bidding of the pornographers and sexual deviants than serving the general public's interests.
The stupidity of the anti-censorship crowd
is revealed best in their not challenging,
firstly, the Board of Library Trustees' own
purposeful censorship practiced in their
book-purchasing process.
The board censors the public from any books they deem not politically correct - a self-censorship triggered, no doubt, by their own threshold for intolerance of works that oppose their politics and sexual orientation - and, then, they hypocritically challenge concerned parents for their request that certain adult materials be placed where kids won't have easy access to them.
There are two ways to sexually molest a
child, PHYSICALLY and PSYCHOLOGICALLY;
the former being too risky to attempt
while the latter is easily accomplished
by providing children access to
pornography. And they, those trustees
and supervisors, molest children under
cover of offering protection for
parents' right to catch their children's
psycho-sexual molestation!
I once had asked a head librarian in Henrico county, Virginia, why she didn't carry The Washington Times:
"Oh, the Washington Times could never
replace the Washington Post, and we
have a limited budget," she replied.
Everyone practices censorship, and all the time.
The majority must wrest control of their libraries and schools and government from minority interests, or abandon the idea of democracy in America altogether.
-Rick
Im so happy i found you. I finally found an amazing reporter and journalist. You helped me in so many ways. The world needs you hun. As soon as Christmas is over I'll definitely be ordering your book. It'll be my birthday gift to myself. I hope you and your family have an amazing Thanksgiving. I can't thank you enough for all of your hard work and efforts you have done to help your fellow Americans get the honest truth behind every story. Your an amazing woman ☺️
With reference to the events of early last November, the deluge of sworn affidavits, the dozens of statistical and data experts of unimpeachable repute, experience and expertise and live witnesses' testimony (from across the political spectrum!) cry out for another book, your magnum opus no less (suggested title: Move Along, Nothing to See)! I know it'll be a hell of a lot of work (but what the hell, Stonewalled showed that you thrive on abuse anyway, LOL, and of course you have the energy of youth ;)). It strikes me and millions of others that those who insist there was no fraud are either blind, willfully ignorant or evil, but I'd like the degree to which that's true or not to be confirmed by your level of investigative research and reporting. (Incidentally I will insist on a first edition, autographed hard-copy with attribution for the title!)