Under the tentative and decidedly uncatchy header “Self-Censorship in Broadcasting Seen as Rising,” The New York Times today reports that radio and television companies are operating at an increasingly paranoid level of self-censorship in the post-Janet Jackson breast era. At a time when we are seeing photos of American soldiers posing in their memento photos with naked and tortured Iraqi prisoners in the Abu Ghraib jail, we can ask the question: What sort of damages are the television and radio stations avoiding in their vigilant self-censorship?  

This is not to say that it may be inappropriate for a young child to be unexpectedly exposed to Janet Jackson’s increasingly gimmicky and breasty attempts to salvage her career. It is also of the utmost importance that the media report and investigate the horrendous abuses that have occurred perhaps systematically and most certainly at Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq. Given this curious and unfortunate juxtaposition, we can certainly explore the question of what is possibly being gained by the increased level of self-censorship in radio and television.

Self-imposed censorship is clearly preferable to external restrictions imposed by a potentially stalinistic Federal Communications Commission. However, when we put the petty offenses — titles such as Elton John’s “The Bitch Is Back,” the contents of “Masterpiece Theater,” which is surely one of the least prurient programs on television, and the word “urinate,” which an Indianapolis radio station bleeped out of Rush Limbaugh’s talk show — into their appropriate context, we can appreciate that what is censored out of radio and television is innocuous and benign when compared with the honest truth regarding the coalition soldiery in Iraq.  

Mimi Hanaoka