5 ms·

So would you say that writing an article about blatant racism by a government official is journalistic abuse because instances of said racism have been happenin

So would you say that writing an article about blatant racism by a government official is journalistic abuse because instances of said racism have been happening constantly throughout all of our history? How long history of rewrites a book needs to have before it is no longer ok to mention there are rewrites in it?

defrost 4y ago
Say what now? This is an article about a new edition of old Christie books - there are no government officials here and the only journalistic abuses here are firstly by the publishers attempting to drum up press about an otherwise dull event and secondly by the Telegraph seizing on thin grounds to grab eyeballs by attempting to drum up outrage. Older editions are still available in libraries and secondhand bookstores, in ten years there'll be different editions again. If you're at all familiar with books and publishing .. well, you wouldn't be failing over this story in the manner that you are.
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  > Older editions are still available in libraries and secondhand bookstores, in ten years there'll be different editions again. Oh yes, they are still available... until the next wave of "sensitivity borrowers" crops up demanding libraries remove those editions. That will happen and has happened already. > If you're at all familiar with books and publishing .. well, you wouldn't be failing over this story in the manner that you are. If you are at all familiar with censorship you would not treat this subject so lightly. Whether it is Soviet "socialist realism" [1] or Nazi "entartete kunst" (degenerate art) [2], these movements never fail to turn into some form of witch hunt. Do you really want to support censorship? [1] https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1934-2/socialist-realism/socialist-realism-texts/the-last-published-statute-on-censorship/ https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1934-2/socialist-realism/socia... Notice also that the censorship laws explicitly do not apply to the Party and its affiliates: 5. Publications of the Communist International, the Central Committee of the VKP(B), krai, oblast and raion committees of the VKP (B), together with the Izvestiia of the Central Executive Committee and the All-Union Executive Committee, the works of the Communist Academy, and those of the Academy of Sciences, are freed from the political and ideological control of Glavlit. [2] https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/entartete-kunst-the-nazis-inventory-of-degenerate-art https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/entartete-kunst-the-nazis-inv...
  - foldr 4y ago
    There's nothing new about publishers revising books to suit current sensibilities. This has been happening throughout the Western world (and no doubt elsewhere) since the invention of the printing press. Any given changes have to be evaluated on their own merits; no doubt some of them may be silly. But a brief look at history shows that there's very little connection between this sort of thing and the kind of censorship that you're Godwinning this thread with.
    - the_third_wave 4y ago
      The comparison is more to "socialist realism" so the term "Godwinning" does not really apply even though I did mention the Nazi equivalent of the Soviet censorship campaign. As to there being "very little connection between this sort of thing and the kind of censorship" I mention I can only shake my head in disbelief. The use of these "sensitivity readers" is a direct result of the adoption of the "inclusion" directive, it is not an organic change where publishers simply follow the demands of the market. It is not the market - i.e. potential readers - which demands these changes but bureaucrats or - more applicable - apparatchiks.
      - foldr 4y ago
        >The use of these "sensitivity readers" is a direct result of the adoption of the "inclusion" directive Then this “inclusion directive” must have been adopted a very long time ago. Someone else has mentioned that this very book was retitled in 1940 due to its original title including the ’n’ word. One wonders why the apparatchiks aren’t censoring the Daily Telegraph too. The answer, of course, is that their powers of censorship (and indeed their very existence) are largely imaginary. >"Godwinning" does not really apply even though I did mention the Nazi ... Err, ok. You mentioned the Nazis and also made another outrageous historical comparison that's hardly any better considered.
  - defrost 4y ago
    You're shoe horning a great deal of breathless pearl clutching into something remarkably dull - standard capitalism fettling old lamps into shiny new lamps with a dash of guerilla marketing. In the last two months there's been stories about Roald Dahl, Enid Blyton, a couple of others and now Agatha Christie. Each time there's been outrage teased in the right wing press obsessed with culture wars, a flurry of free press via over hyped social media discussion, and then yet another edition release by publishers of "original" Ye Olde UnWoke OG editions . . . Are you seeing a marketing pattern here? Two markets for the price of very little shit stirring via lazy click bait "journalists". Perhaps you're a little too obsessed with death of the world via imagined censorship to notice the strings upon which you're seemingly blindly being tugged about.

defrost 4y ago

Say what now? This is an article about a new edition of old Christie books - there are no government officials here and the only journalistic abuses here are firstly by the publishers attempting to drum up press about an otherwise dull event and secondly by the Telegraph seizing on thin grounds to grab eyeballs by attempting to drum up outrage. Older editions are still available in libraries and secondhand bookstores, in ten years there'll be different editions again. If you're at all familiar with books and publishing .. well, you wouldn't be failing over this story in the manner that you are.

the_third_wave 4y ago
> Older editions are still available in libraries and secondhand bookstores, in ten years there'll be different editions again. Oh yes, they are still available... until the next wave of "sensitivity borrowers" crops up demanding libraries remove those editions. That will happen and has happened already. > If you're at all familiar with books and publishing .. well, you wouldn't be failing over this story in the manner that you are. If you are at all familiar with censorship you would not treat this subject so lightly. Whether it is Soviet "socialist realism" [1] or Nazi "entartete kunst" (degenerate art) [2], these movements never fail to turn into some form of witch hunt. Do you really want to support censorship? [1] https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1934-2/socialist-realism/socialist-realism-texts/the-last-published-statute-on-censorship/ https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1934-2/socialist-realism/socia... Notice also that the censorship laws explicitly do not apply to the Party and its affiliates: 5. Publications of the Communist International, the Central Committee of the VKP(B), krai, oblast and raion committees of the VKP (B), together with the Izvestiia of the Central Executive Committee and the All-Union Executive Committee, the works of the Communist Academy, and those of the Academy of Sciences, are freed from the political and ideological control of Glavlit. [2] https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/entartete-kunst-the-nazis-inventory-of-degenerate-art https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/entartete-kunst-the-nazis-inv...
- foldr 4y ago
  There's nothing new about publishers revising books to suit current sensibilities. This has been happening throughout the Western world (and no doubt elsewhere) since the invention of the printing press. Any given changes have to be evaluated on their own merits; no doubt some of them may be silly. But a brief look at history shows that there's very little connection between this sort of thing and the kind of censorship that you're Godwinning this thread with.
  - the_third_wave 4y ago
    The comparison is more to "socialist realism" so the term "Godwinning" does not really apply even though I did mention the Nazi equivalent of the Soviet censorship campaign. As to there being "very little connection between this sort of thing and the kind of censorship" I mention I can only shake my head in disbelief. The use of these "sensitivity readers" is a direct result of the adoption of the "inclusion" directive, it is not an organic change where publishers simply follow the demands of the market. It is not the market - i.e. potential readers - which demands these changes but bureaucrats or - more applicable - apparatchiks.
    - foldr 4y ago
      >The use of these "sensitivity readers" is a direct result of the adoption of the "inclusion" directive Then this “inclusion directive” must have been adopted a very long time ago. Someone else has mentioned that this very book was retitled in 1940 due to its original title including the ’n’ word. One wonders why the apparatchiks aren’t censoring the Daily Telegraph too. The answer, of course, is that their powers of censorship (and indeed their very existence) are largely imaginary. >"Godwinning" does not really apply even though I did mention the Nazi ... Err, ok. You mentioned the Nazis and also made another outrageous historical comparison that's hardly any better considered.
- defrost 4y ago
  You're shoe horning a great deal of breathless pearl clutching into something remarkably dull - standard capitalism fettling old lamps into shiny new lamps with a dash of guerilla marketing. In the last two months there's been stories about Roald Dahl, Enid Blyton, a couple of others and now Agatha Christie. Each time there's been outrage teased in the right wing press obsessed with culture wars, a flurry of free press via over hyped social media discussion, and then yet another edition release by publishers of "original" Ye Olde UnWoke OG editions . . . Are you seeing a marketing pattern here? Two markets for the price of very little shit stirring via lazy click bait "journalists". Perhaps you're a little too obsessed with death of the world via imagined censorship to notice the strings upon which you're seemingly blindly being tugged about.