Censorship By the Media? Could such an irony exist?
Dear Editor,
Most newsmedia people complain big stink when governments and bureaucrats suppress information however how do their producers and editors measure up?
Few media will publish ‘letters to the editor’, or are willing to broadcast messages that express skeptical or critical views on so called Global Warming and other enviro-bandwaggon issues of “the eco-alarmist-religious movement”.
There are many more skeptics out here in the real world than people know, but we are being muzzled and subdued as ‘evil-thinkers and climate-change deniers’.
It appears the thought control staff in many media are now dominated by leftist eco-convert types who are collectively suppressing and slanting the message to suit their doctrinized ganga-green obsessive-compulsive philosophy.
Guard the incoming mail and like faithful thought-nazis, release only ideas that are favourable with Pseudo Suzuki or Gospel Gore’s hysterical doomsday rantings. Occasionally, to mask their devious intent, they will release mildly skeptical opinions after heavy editing.
The dictionary definition of ‘censorship’ describes this as the “exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor”.
These thought police are withholding criticism of left wing ideologies and are promoting their eco-subsidizing proposals, (carbon-taxes, cap and trade, etc).
This movement is also trying to indoctrinate our kids with their eco-alarmist ideology. Forcing them to watch Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Lies’ in our Schools etc. Most teachers have bought-in to the climate change hysteria, as a result, our kids are being taught ‘what’ to think rather than being taught ‘how to think critically’.
Here is an example: I wrote a prominent Vancouver paper expressing my concerns of instilling fear in our kids and brain-programming them with the phony “Inconvienent Truth Movie” about to be shown in our public schools. (A British court banned it from the schools in Britain.) The editorial staff said my letter was too long, and said they would print it if I shortened it, so I shortened it as requested. Well, they suppressed it because they didn’t like the point of view. Instead, they printed their own version, twice as long 400 word article, (using most of my information), promoting and recommending the showing of the phony Al Gore movie in the schools, and published it as “The newspapers point of view”. The courageless (psychic censor) editor didn’t even have the intestinal fortitude to put her name on it, but chose to hide behind “The Paper”.
Was the owner of the paper telling their editors that they must only think green and publish enviro-fanatic left? Who knows, but then it brings me to wonder why I should be surprised?
Roland Seguin
Langley, BC
