Censorship under Nazi Germany

Least we forget…

Censorship was rampant throughout Nazi Germany. Censorship ensured that Germans could only see what the Nazi hierarchy wanted people to see, hear what they wanted them to hear and read only what the Nazis deemed acceptable. The Nazi police dealt with anyone who went outside of these boundaries. Censorship dominated the lives of the ordinary citizen in Nazi Germany.The prime mover in censorship was the Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. It was his responsibility to see that the German people were fed with material acceptable to the Nazi state. Newspapers, radio and all forms of media were put under the control of the Nazis. Even the film industry became controlled by the Nazis where the leading light was Leni Riefenstahl - who, though favoured by Hitler, did not enjoy a good relationship with Goebbels. Music was controlled by the Nazis. Music by Gustav Mahler and Felix Mendelssohn was banned as they were both Jews. Jazz was also banned. Even telling jokes about Hitler became a serious offence - one to send you to the concentration camps and potentially death.

Censorship was enforced by a number of methods. First, the secret police or the ‘normal’ police ensured that the rules were kept to. Secondly, anyone who wanted to go outside of the desired party norm faced the most serious of consequences. Third, people in general were expected to report anything unacceptable to their local party chief. Those who knew something but did not report it were deemed as guilty as those who went against the system. Censorship ensured that the Nazis had the German public in their grip as they bombarded them on a daily basis on how their lives had been improved from the day Hitler became Germany’s leader.

Great post, thanks. :)

Thanks UTD…

Reminds me of the path US is treading upon…Censorship and banning of all that don’t agree with it…

“Either you are with us, or against us” - G.W. Bush…:k:

Any complaints against this remark?

[quote]
Third, people in general were expected to report anything unacceptable to their local party chief. Those who knew something but did not report it were deemed as guilty as those who went against the system.
[/quote]

sounds awfully similar to the TIPS program started by the Department of Motherland Security.

A huge mistake. And a quote that earns GBJ complete discreditation as a spokesperson for the U.S.

You are either for terror or against it, that's the message that was being passed on.

In case of US and IDF they are for and against terror at the same time.

Interesting. Thanks for posting that up, UTD.

Keeping Nazi Germany in mind, how do Guppies feel about censorship in general?

LI, don't wish peace upon anyone and you should be fine.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
LI, don't wish peace upon anyone and you should be fine.
[/QUOTE]

UTD, don't make noise.

Is this what you’re talking about UTD? :smiley: :

So Chris Wallace says Fox News Channel really is fair and balanced. Well, I guess that settles it. We can all go home now. I mean, so what if Wallace’s salary as Fox’s newest big-name anchor ends with a whole lot of zeroes? So what if he hasn’t spent a day in the FNC newsroom yet?

My advice to the pundits: If you really want to know about bias at Fox, talk to the grunts who work there – the desk assistants, tape editors, writers, researchers and assorted producers who have to deal with it every day. Ask enough of them what goes on, promise them anonymity, and you’ll get the real story.

The fact is, daily life at FNC is all about management politics. I say this having served six years there – as producer of the media criticism show, News Watch, as a writer/producer of specials and (for the last year of my stay) as a newsroom copy editor. Not once in the 20+ years I had worked in broadcast journalism prior to Fox – including lengthy stays at The Associated Press, CBS Radio and ABC/Good Morning America – did I feel any pressure to toe a management line. But at Fox, if my boss wasn’t warning me to “be careful” how I handled the writing of a special about Ronald Reagan (“You know how Roger [Fox News Chairman Ailes] feels about him.”), he was telling me how the environmental special I was to produce should lean (“You can give both sides, but make sure the pro- environmentalists don’t get the last word.”)

Editorially, the FNC newsroom is under the constant control and vigilance of management. The pressure ranges from subtle to direct. First of all, it’s a news network run by one of the most high-profile political operatives of recent times. Everyone there understands that FNC is, to a large extent, “Roger’s Revenge” - against what he considers a liberal, pro-Democrat media establishment that has shunned him for decades. For the staffers, many of whom are too young to have come up through the ranks of objective journalism, and all of whom are non-union, with no protections regarding what they can be made to do, there is undue motivation to please the big boss.

Sometimes, this eagerness to serve Fox’s ideological interests goes even beyond what management expects. For example, in June of last year, when a California judge ruled the Pledge of Allegiance’s “Under God” wording unconstitutional, FNC’s newsroom chief ordered the judge’s mailing address and phone number put on the screen. The anchor, reading from the Teleprompter, found himself explaining that Fox was taking this unusual step so viewers could go directly to the judge and get “as much information as possible” about his decision. To their credit, the big bosses recognized that their underling’s transparent attempt to serve their political interests might well threaten the judge’s physical safety and ordered the offending information removed from the screen as soon as they saw it. A few months later, this same eager-to-please newsroom chief ordered the removal of a graphic quoting UN weapons inspector Hans Blix as saying his team had not yet found WMDs in Iraq. Fortunately, the electronic equipment was quicker on the uptake (and less susceptible to office politics) than the toady and displayed the graphic before his order could be obeyed.

But the roots of FNC’s day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel’s daytime programming, The Memo is the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it.

The Memo was born with the Bush administration, early in 2001, and, intentionally or not, has ensured that the administration’s point of view consistently comes across on FNC. This year, of course, the war in Iraq became a constant subject of The Memo. But along with the obvious – information on who is where and what they’ll be covering – there have been subtle hints as to the tone of the anchors’ copy. For instance, from the March 20th memo: “There is something utterly incomprehensible about Kofi Annan’s remarks in which he allows that his thoughts are ‘with the Iraqi people.’ One could ask where those thoughts were during the 23 years Saddam Hussein was brutalizing those same Iraqis. Food for thought.” Can there be any doubt that the memo was offering not only “food for thought,” but a direction for the FNC writers and anchors to go? Especially after describing the U.N. Secretary General’s remarks as “utterly incomprehensible”?

The sad truth is, such subtlety is often all it takes to send Fox’s newsroom personnel into action – or inaction, as the case may be. One day this past spring, just after the U.S. invaded Iraq, The Memo warned us that anti-war protesters would be “whining” about U.S. bombs killing Iraqi civilians, and suggested they could tell that to the families of American soldiers dying there. Editing copy that morning, I was not surprised when an eager young producer killed a correspondent’s report on the day’s fighting – simply because it included a brief shot of children in an Iraqi hospital.

These are not isolated incidents at Fox News Channel, where virtually no one of authority in the newsroom makes a move unmeasured against management’s politics, actual or perceived. At the Fair and Balanced network, everyone knows management’s point of view, and, in case they’re not sure how to get it on air, The Memo is there to remind them.

I refuse to write, "Fox News", without the quotes.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by LuxuryItem: *
Keeping Nazi Germany in mind, how do Guppies feel about censorship in general?
[/QUOTE]

I dislike censorship, but am a firm believer that with freedom comes responsibility. when people do not use their freedoms in a responsible manner there are consequences.. one can yip yap about someone else and get sued for defamation..The entire situation with labels on cds would not be required had artists not used the type of language they used, and if people find it inappropriate there has to be a way to mark that thing. Similarly you are free to enjoy porn in the privacy of your home, but try pinning up some centerfolds at work and then complain about censorship while cleaning out your desk and escorted out by security.

I always hope that ppl learn to use their freedom in a responsible manner, because you cant overstep it and start messing up with other people's rights in doing so. I know I cant play loud music past a certain hour..because if i do the cops will come and shut it down..why do they do so, because they made rules about it..why did they make rules about it..because there probably were people who saw the lack of rules as an opportunity to do as they please without any regard to teh rights fo others around them.

censorship comes in this picture..i am not a proponent of censorship..but I do think that there are ways of doing things where the message could be made without crossing the line..now that line in itself is a matter of debate because it varies from culture to culture, country to country..and even then there are ppl who see that line as restrictive and others who may see it as "too little-too late"

Spoon:
I know Fox News is a popular whipping boy, but why post this article in a thread dealing with Censorship Under Nazi Germany? The fact that a Fox News even exists so that it may broadcast "news" slanted toward the political proclivity of its private owners demonstrates the antithesis of the totalitarian governmental censorship giving rise to and protecting dictatorships and despots throughout the world. FoxNews is not a pro-administration or government controlled outlet. It is a pro-conservative, pro-Republican outlet that will be anti-administration when a liberal democrat takes over the white house.

The danger of government control of news media in the US was far greater decades ago when virtually all of America was limited to the big three CBS, NBC and ABC. As long as anyone and everyone with enough money can own a TV network, publish a newspaper, own a radio station, etc. and tell a story as they see fit, our country will be well served.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
As long as anyone and everyone with enough money can own a TV network, publish a newspaper, own a radio station, etc. and tell a story as they see fit, our country will be well served.
[/QUOTE]

which brings us to the other issue of the consolidation of media outlets..has been in news too. clearspace owning a huge percentage of radiostations..same happenign with broadcasting stations owning other media outlets. all of a sudden the choices get very limited, but then this whole deal is a diff topic than nazi germany

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *

which brings us to the other issue of the consolidation of media outlets..has been in news too. clearspace owning a huge percentage of radiostations..same happenign with broadcasting stations owning other media outlets. all of a sudden the choices get very limited, but then this whole deal is a diff topic than nazi germany
[/QUOTE]

I think the issue of consolidation is entirely overblown. When I was just a wee lad, there were less than 8 TV stations available in major markets and darn few radio stations. Now, there are hundreds of TV and radio stations available in each market not to mention news sources on the Internet.

Can you tell me anywhere on earth where the airwaves are more independently owned by the public than in the US and where the average guy has more varied sources of information than in the US? I don't happen to think that consolidation driven by economic and business motivations poses the danger of causing a single monolithic media network to emerge or to limit our choices and access to information in any meaningful way.

MV .. knew I'd get ya :p
But seriously, I accept what you're saying.. and I don't mean to call Fox, Republicans or anyone else Nazis.. though I still view Fox "News" (there ya go UTD :)) as BS.

My idea of the media, their bias and power, is that the problem does not lie with them.. it's just that we've got too damn many gullible people. Having an opinion is cool. Express it however you like as long as you don't hurt anyone. But PLEASE if you're going to flaunt an opinion, make sure it is your own and you know what the hell it is you're talking about, and most of all, do realise it is only opinion.. don't call it fact when it's not. ("you" being generic)

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by spoon: *
But PLEASE if you're going to flaunt an opinion, make sure it is your own and you know what the hell it is you're talking about, and most of all, do realise it is only opinion.. don't call it fact when it's not. ("you" being generic)
[/QUOTE]

I couldn't agree more with that expressed opinion if I had written it myself.

The problem with almost all sources of "news" is that they have thoroughly blurred the line between factual reporting and opinion editorializing as to almost render it meaningless. This is true of virtually every source I have been exposed to. People who share the opinion being expoused usually claim that the news source is unbiased and just reporting facts.

I often prefer listening to a show like Hannity and Colmes or Crossfire where two biased guys try to prove their points or tear apart a nasty guest. You know their biases and you know they are spinning facts to support an opinion. Often, you can find some truth somewhere in the middle.

BTW.

I have an udder distate for FOX news.

I think the news boys should go back to Chicago and take photos of Cows.