Media Censorship. — it's like the Vatican Index — but without the frank acknowledgement that it exists:
When speaking of punishing criminals, it's standard on the networks
to discuss strictly what that will do for them,
while avoiding consideration of what the educational spectacle of punishment
tells potential future criminals,
Experts' presumption evidently being that criminals are
— except by the same Experts.
(DIO 4.2  ‡9 §E [p.79].)
When discussing the intellectual issue of professionally aggrieved groups'
attempts to rid the world of ANYTHING that offends their delicate
sensibilities, DR refuses to say
``the N-Word'' instead of (to quote our Leader) ``nigger''
since that IS the subject at issue
and because the avoidance of mere SYLLABLES (after all!)
is submission to censorship that's right out of 1984.
(The Appendix to which notes that he who controls language
controls the future.)
With Austria, Israel, and other nations trying to stamp out use of the word Nazi, we now have not one but (so far, anyway) two dreaded N-Words. Why be ambiguous when straight talk is always clearer and franker, and thus more productive?
Race-obsessed censors who hate (and, yes, they are the true haters here) courageous free-speakers keep insisting upon a Rule which has been propagandized incessantly (at least since the 1955 film Blackboard Jungle): only an aggrieved group can use its very own Word.
 How red or black or whatever do you have to be, in order be admitted into the order of the chosen? Do we need to call in race-experts like John Calhoun, Heinie Himmler, B.O., & Sharpton to find out?
 Can only Nazis can use their N-word? — and only Moslems can make drawings of their founder? (Neither do so, by contrast to MTV's gutterfare.)
Note: those who most lustily threaten dissenters with unemployment (and thus starvation) actually call themselves ``Liberals'' — this, in a nation that used to be proud of its First Amendment, which is currently cast aside at the slightest quiver of ethnic sensitivity.
Such censorship is so lethally total that the media (with the sole and admirable exception of Harris Faulkner) cannot even ask who is enforcing the Rule.
Societies have been aggressively at this crusade for the last 1/4 century. (Europe's ``Hate-Speech'' laws threaten jail for critical comments on ethnic groups. Will cartoons be next?) Has this diversionary sop actually improved the poorest groups' wealth? Employment? Education? Safety? Or the prospect of ending their perpetual, understandably-enraging misery?
All it is now accomplishing is spreading the enragement, as productive middle-class citizens find their expressive freedom curtailed — a prime stimulus to backlashes that perpetuate self-feeding hostile cycles.
Birth control & abortion are always spoken of as individual rights, never as as ameliorating the larger society's problems, e.g., poverty, illiteracy, or drugs. Birth-control pioneer Margaret Sanger's noble purpose (to wipe out poverty) isn't even mentioned anymore. (See DIO 4.3  ‡13 §E [pp.116-117].) E.g., when we hear on The Medium that ordmag 10% of US children live in poverty, it is undiscussable that one weapon in the fight against this disgrace might be: if a woman can't afford a kid and-or has no partner in the home (white bastardy rate is now almost 50%; black, c.75%), then that person should not have a child (unless adopting in tha latter situation).
One rigid rule of the FreesniggerPress: NOBODY can say a good word for China's try at slowing the planet's steady march towards shoulder-to-shoulder closeness covering its entire land-mass.
Ethnic Canon Law: Divorce Is Not an Option:
Another press-untouchable: why is it OK with the west's FreesnickerPress for Cyprus and Israel to divide two mutually-irreconcilable ethnic groups? — while for Europe or the US, it's simultaneously deemed (in every organ: press, MTV, film) THE vilest of all social sins.
Why can even the very existence of th8s contrast not be pubicly discussed?
And, as usual, TV 'snews never asks WHY it can't.
Or WHO is setting and monitoring the limits of discourse.
Why does the court system routinely release nuts
on their promise to take meds?
I.e., why trust a crazy guy to take-his-medication? —
when his reliability is, after all, that of a loon….
Near the end of 2005, we hear a revealing inversion of this alibi: ever-pumped-up steroid-era ex-pitcher Jeff Reardon tries a failed jewelry-store hold-up — and the Medium in-perfect-shrinkoanalytic-lockstep nationally alibis him by saying he did it because he was ON his meds.
[In 2006, P.Kennedy pulled the same ploy, again with media assistance.]
Sure — isn't that the first thing you and I think of when we're dopey from oversleep or whatever: hey, let's go rob a store! And make it a jewelry store so it'll be obvious that gain wasn't the motive ….
Doctoring the News
— Censorial Castle, Circular Moat:
The Medium keeps calling MLK “Dr. King”, though his PhD thesis was riddled with plagiarism. (Unattributed passages taken from about 9 scholars. All evidently as white as many of his women. Racism works in mysterious ways.) Side-by-side word-comparisons at Wash Post 1990/11/10. (DIO 1.2  n.154 [p.132].) Memory-holed almost immediately, so virtually no youngster is aware of these facts. Pure Orwell.
[The truth of King's plagiarism was kept from the public for over a year. Coincidentally, it was during this censorial period, that Arizona was being slandered for being the one state of the US that had not yet agreed to honor MLKing Day. It was after Arizona came on board that King's plagiarism was made public. Question:
Did Arizona have a right to know of this academic crime before deciding?
Has the press ever even discussed such questions?
Or why it won't discuss such questions?
Or discuss why it won't even ask why it won't discuss…. This spectacle can leave many with ambiguities about their evaluation of MLKing. But none whatever about the integrity and courage of the media in the face of a decades-long reign of terror against the crime of dissent.
The foregoing was replayed in 2009-2010, as Ireland became the recalcitrant Arizona of the EU-constitution-assent saga. Finally, after refusing approval in a prior vote, the Irish came aboard. Only to learn in early 2010 that [a] Greece was going bust and so needed to be bailed out by the rest of the EU; and (in an exact reply of the King-plagiarism scandal) [b] this had been kept secret (by the banking community that owns the EU) for years. Again: does anyone think that the chronology of either of these swindles is merely accidental?]
Why don't the media ever ask a very simple, basic question?
If the legal profession
so about capital punishment, why don't lawyers
(hardly a needy bunch!) volunteer to defend indigent accused murderers?
Instead, the system forces all of us taxpayers to fund
the truth-jugglers who try as hard as they can
to get killers out again, back on the-street, so long as the-street is
in the dumb-taxpayer's middle-class neighborhood, and NOT
(DIO 4.2 
‡9 §L3 [p.85]) near the rich neighborhoods
of the pseudo-forgiving sweet defense-lawyers,
shrinks, & judges that are very handsomely milking this disastrous
and otherwise profitless ongoing piece of pure theatre.
[By theatre, we mean: [a] the criminals are lying; and [b] the defense-lawyers, judges, & shrinks are pretending, both in their ploys AND in their let-'em-live (elsewhere) fake-sympathy.]
Summing up the incongruity: isn't it comforting to note that, if you're murdered, your taxes will fund the artful defense of your murderer? Unless he's rich enough to afford his own handsome, Gerry-Spencesque-lovable mout'piece — in which case he'll probably get off completely.
Note that TV'snews-magazines always treat plastic-surgery-beautification of
vulnerable teenage women much more promotionally than not —
hardly (if) ever warning of, e.g., the fact that soft-tissue surgery will
customarily require return-bouts. (And that implants are like marriage:
divorce is more expense than insertion.)
[Even TV 'snews very-occasional negative remarks can be seen (like tobacco's messages on the dangers of buying its product) as helping the plastic-surgeon lobby by creating a situation in which anyone suing for a botched job cannot claim she wasn't sorta warned.
(After being almost conspiratorially fashist-press-excited-desperate — to the point of udder incaution.)]
And since the “Free Press” is incorruptible by private payoffs, we know it's just coincidence that there's enormously more money being generated by carving up kids than by discouraging mutilative vanity.
At the end of every calendar year, “Publishers Clearing House” gives away millions of dollars to (a very, very few among) those who send back their win-ten-$million ad-mailings. Meanwhile, the Medium systematically fails to explain the oddly mechanical once-a-year factor in such sweet Generosity. It's merely a mail-list enterprise's scheme for updating its sucker lists, in particular: gauging advancing gullibility & fiscal desperation among the aging, making it among the most expensive sucker-list marketers can buy.
When covering “insanity” cases of murder (and-or rape),
the Medium invariably decrees that
The Key Question is:
did the creep “know-right-from-wrong”?
No. The KEY question is: how did we get shepherded into fixating on such junk?
Who cares whether a nut-murderer knows-right-from-wrong — if he's a proven intentional killer, get rid of him.
Whether he knew killing was wrong is irrelevant except for those bent on vengeance. (Ironic! — since the bleating-hearts who mouthe shrinkoanalytic alibis for killers claim to abhor vengeance.)
[Contradiction explored more fully at DIO 4.2  ‡9 §F2 [p.79]. E.g., “Actually, if the sanity issue has any relevance to murder trials, it is:
we should be even tougher on nut-murderers than on rational murderers (most of whom are less sure to repeat). And, in today's courts, the insanity-defense is simply a hook to hang jury-sympathy on. If jurors fall in love with defendants (e.g., the Menendez & BobIt cases), then courtroom rent-a-shrinks will provide the mumbo-jumbo justification for anointing the belovéd with an Innocent verdict.”]
TV 'snews' conservative talking-heads can't wait to invite atheists onto the air to trash them for opposing school prayer. But, during natural catastrophes (wiping out hundreds of thousands of people, including lots of sinless children and foetuses), TV 'snews plays up “miracles” regarding the handful of survivors, while never asking how god could permit such mass slaughter — and never inviting atheists to join the customary priest&guru-crammed panels ritualistically convened on air to explain-away such Acts-of-God.
I've seen hundreds of corporate-owned (thus globalization-happy) news-media
will-they-or-won't-they stories on nations' citizens voting on getting into
the EU. But there seems to be minimal press consideration given
to a slightly relevant point: how can a nation get
out of the EU?
Please, Br'er EU, Pleeeease Don't Throw Me Outta the Club:
Hmmm. A 2006/11 press story reports that any EU nation that legalizes the death penalty can be expelled from the EU. (OK, OK, who believes the EU would really expel any nation it can make an euro from?) Sounds like a neat ploy-path for a nation to exit the debt-saddled EU.
And the idea suggests that the 1861 Confederacy might have held back on shelling Sumter, and instead tried a soft approach. (Inspired by the South's own Br'er Rabbit, Br'er Fox & The Briar Patch.) But, wait a minute: if buying-and-selling human beings hadn't caused the southern states' expulsion from the early US! — then, is there ANYthing that could have done it? What could be more immoral, more outrageous to the 1861 USA than slavery? (Would Confederate nude beaches have done the trick…? Or just triggered a quicker, more civilian invasion?)
BUT — how about a REALLY serious offense, one so unspeakably against nature that outraged 1861 Yankee rulers would have demanded Congress instantly throw the perverse states at least out of the Union (if outer space couldn't be arranged):