Much Ado About… | The Rumpus Blur!
Burning … burning?
For example, the publisher of this site, The Rubicon, can choose what to publish and what not to publish. And he can pull something already published, whenever for whatever. Comments to blogs must first be screened before they are allowed. This is no different for the New York Times, CNN or any other news entity in the free world.
Freedom of speech means that I also have this same prerogative. The Internet has created a neophyte publisher’s paradise, websites and blogs everywhere, readily available for everyone one and anyone. I can write a column, screen the responses and pull it whenever I like. This is my freedom as a publisher. You may not like what I write, how I write it, whether or not I publish your response or delete any of the above at a later date. Tough! That’s my privilege as a publisher. If you don’t like it, you can publish your own site expressing your viewpoint. This is what’s meant by freedom of the press.
In fact, TR can choose not to publish this post and there’s nothing I can do about it, except take issue with and/or post it over at www.joenoland.blogspot.com, where I am the all-powerful publisher.
Point being: The publisher of the above referenced TSA periodical has the freedom to publish or pull whatever, whenever, whether we like it or not. Now some pretty strong statements have been made, but this particular “pulling” cannot be interpreted as “book burning” or “suppression,” even in the most generous sense of the word. This is where I take issue. Perhaps it’s not the decision you and I would’ve made, but then we’re not the publisher, are we? We can disagree with the decision, verbally, express our viewpoint here and elsewhere, but we cannot decry it as book burning or suppression.
Let me get personal here and come at it from a former TC’s POV. In that position, I created a magazine, “Priority.” It had a stated purpose and objective. As publisher, I personally screened everything proposed for inclusion; rejecting that which I didn’t think belonged. It was a magazine designed to uplift, inform and inspire. Negative reviews and critical columns didn’t enhance its stated purpose. This was my right as its publisher. In the interim (since retiring), I have disagreed with some of the inclusions in that magazine; it’s not the way I would have done it. Tough! I’m no longer the publisher.
On the other hand, if you as a government entity, military body or some other outside autocratic force, apart from the publisher, confiscate and destroy a particular issue of Priority because it takes issue with your leanings or propagates a different political point of view, now we’re talking suppression. This is where the line begins to blur a little, especially with the advent of cyberspace publishing. Once it was only available to the select, influential (appointed) few; now it is open to the whosoever.
Here’s the Army blur. Once upon a time, within The Salvation Army, only Territorial Commanders and The General, by appointment, we’re considered the Publisher of books and periodicals in their particular command. And as an officer, you could not publish anything without permission, and then only after it was thoroughly screened. The Internet has changed all of this, making every TSA officer blogger a publisher in his/her own right. Hmmm, see the beginning of the blur?
I’m aware of TSA officer cyberspace publishers who, through intimidation and threat, have been forced to discontinue publishing their writings, simply because they differ from the Commander’s POV. The blur here is whether or not an OCP (Officer Cyberspace Publisher) is in fact a publisher in his/her own right, or does the Army have a right to sanction, control and manage the content of every officer published writing out in cyberspace? To my way of thinking, intimidation regarding future appointments and threats about the withholding of postgraduate educational benefits constitutes suppression.
For me, this is a subject worthy of “much ado,” rather than quibbling over a legitimate publisher’s right to pull an issue it deemed unworthy for print. Is an OCP a valid publisher? I submit that he/she is. If so, should these writings be screened, validated and/or suppressed by the “powers that be?” Do the same TSA publishing guidelines apply in a 21st Century cyberspace culture? Hmmm, the blur thickens.
I don’t know about you, but these are question and issues that get my “rumpus” up. Comparatively speaking, the brouhaha surrounding that HOD review “pulling” is much ado about nothing. Now, understandably, TR publisher may disagree with me and choose not to print this because he’s all-powerful with regard to this cyberspace magazine. If so, then look for this post over at Slightly Irregular. On second thought, maybe it fits better over at www.slightlyirreverent.blogspot.com. If he does choose to print it (and I think he will), go on over there anyway and read about other issues that get my rumpus going.
rum-pus n an outcry or noisy disturbance (Encarta).
Writer: Commissioner Joe Noland’s ministry can be summed up in three words: chaos, creativity and controversy - three elements implicit in any successful innovative endeavor. Cecil B. DeMille, renowned producer of Biblical epics, once wrote, “Creativity is a drug I cannot live without.” Joe’s mantra reads, “Creativity is my drug of choice.” Access Joe Noland’s complete bio, among other things, by clicking into his website.
7 Comments to Much Ado About… | The Rumpus Blur!
Leave a comment
Categories
- 1000 Post Celebration
- Areopagus
- Belief
- Blogroll
- COMING SOON
- Concise Oxford
- Creation
- Creative Arts
- Double~take
- Easter
- Ecclesia
- Education
- Ephemera
- FAD
- Featured
- From Russia with Blogs
- Gen whY?
- History
- JustThinking
- Lives lived
- Match factory
- Match Factory Events
- Ordination
- Personae
- Politics
- Power
- Ragamuffin
- Ramblings
- Redux - The Best of
- Resources
- Resurrected writers
- Reviews
- Rubicon Books
- Rubiconography
- Shades of grey
- Shades of grey
- Supper Club
- theRubi-Blog
- Think
- Thinkaloud
- Thought
- Uncategorized
- Urbanities
- Vox populi
Sound and Fury
- Slaves 5 Margaret Okubo, David, Johnny Gainey
- What The Hell? (Part One: Bell's Hell) 12 Jim, Jim, Robert deidrick
- Politics #1 : Political parties - An Erroneous Assumption 4 Rochelle Stockman, Terry Camsey, Phil
- Murungu or Mwanangu 5 George, givesak, Andrea614Regent
- Heaven without hell 24 Mary Davis, Cadet Nathan Swartz, Andrew Bale
Hi Joe
Very true - a publisher can choose to pull something for whatever reasons they deem valid.
However, I think context is playing an important role in shaping people’s interpretations of this particular event. People are aware of other situations which seem to be pointing toward a clamp-down on any kind of dissent, and what would seem to be a tightening of controls on publications.
For example, an officer I know told me that when the revised edition of Servants Together came out, she received an email which said that the first editions of the book should be discarded. That is a rather strange move. You don’t normally order the first edition of a book to be tossed when the second edition comes out. This officer used the term “book burning” in that case, and I don’t think she was too far off the mark.
There are other examples I could note here, but my point is that the Army is not “any publisher” exercising their right to publish or pull what they want. The Army, in any given Territory, is a very particular publisher with particular goals, and we’re all aware that self-criticism has not often been seen as aligning easily with those goals.
There is a relevant history here that shapes the way such actions are interpreted. If it was an isolated incident, we might not have noticed.
James
Are they going to review every sermon? Every HL presentation? I realize these are not necessarily published but they do strike at the very heart of the argument; the ability to think, and perhaps think outside the box.
DT
Joe, thanks for your thoughts. They always add to the conversation.
You are correct: a publisher has the right to take their magazine, stop playing, and go home.
Much ado about nothing, though? Nah. This is something. Is it the end of the world? No. The end of the world is the end of the world. Should we get Jackie Chiles on the case? Nah. It’s not “lewd, lascivious, salacious, outrageous.” It is, however, too bad it’s the space some folks were in. Sometimes we need to take off our red, yellow, and blue colored glasses for a moment and have honest thought and opinion?
It would have been more helpful for someone with a different opinion to have written in the next issue. Share the other side of the new HOD.
Destroying the publication destroys the conversation.
Destroying the conversation is the total opposite of uplifting, informing, and inspiring.
Don’t forget to always shake your rumpus.
markbraye
Joe, I appreciate your comments. The difficulty with the magazine that was withdrawn in Australia is, as I understand the situation, that only one person didn’t like the book review whereas everyone else seemed cool about it - which seems a fair thing because the review was quite harmless.
So, I agree that the publisher has the right to ‘pull’ his magazine. But what if the publisher is wrong?
This censorship seems a clear case of someone saying ‘I’m right and the rest of you are wrong’.
And that’s not only censorship, it’s pride and arrogance too.
Jack
Joe
Thanks for this and I agree with you regarding a publisher’s right to pubish that which they like and approve off. And I do this as one who has been through it with an article I wrote many years ago.
While in Training Collge I wrote and article for the Canadian Officer’s Bulletin(at the request of the editor - Major Bill Brown). He had it all set up in the draft of the magazine while we were 2nd year cadets but was told to pull it by our then TC–Arnold Brown. He disagreed with some of the ideas presented. Major Brown told me all this and suggested he hold it till the fall when the Commisioner would be gone.
I changed the introductory sentence and so in the fall when it was then submitted in a draft he was able to say to the board that there had been a change and it was published. As a Cadet I also had written a letter to the editor of The Toronto Star praising the Cardinal Archbishop of Toronto about his stance on a specific item. The letter was published identfying me only by name and no indication that I was a cadet or officer of TSA.
I was called in and berated for expressing my opinion and told that I could not even write letters to the editor without permission. Needless to say this did not stop me and as an Officer I did the same with one of national magazines in Canada ( a Canadian publication called McLeans similar to Time) and again got berated by the powers that be. The threats implied in the beration were perhaps some of the events which helped lead us to leave officership and work in another denomination at the time.
SO what I am saying is–yes TSA has the rght to control what is published in their publications but I believe does not have the right to censor our speech or writings in other publications. They would still have the right to deal with us if our outside publications indicated we were out of step with Army Doctrine or denied the funamentals of Christianity.
Thanks again.
John S.
I understand that when an organization is publishing its own publications, it is not totally clear how to go about critiquing things the organization does. As far as I can tell, TSA has mainly used its publications as PR tools (even if the PR is aimed only for those on the inside). So what would be the point of reviewing any book, film, album, etc. produced by TSA?
If you decide to have reviews, then you are running into tricky ground. And reading the review of HOD - I would say it was written in very careful, equivocating language that still implied a fairly clear disenchantment with the new HOD.
I understand the new HOD is considered “the General’s project”, but we all know the purpose of the HOD. Regardless of who writes it. A book review is just out of place. A synopsis could be useful. Obviously, when such a publication comes out, our publications are going to be expected to let people know about them. So write a synopsis.
Nevertheless, the pull of an approved article post-facto is a concern among those who would like to see dialogue (regardless of their feelings on the subject of the dialogue). It also happens in the context of hearing that previous editions of books are supposed to be destroyed. (I’ve never been in any position to see that such orders have actually been made.)
The climate is one in which some/many/? people sense there is a strong attempt to silence by forceful action taken from above. The climate is the context that helps to understand people’s responses. In the absence of such a climate, pulling a mildly critical review might seem like an over-response to small show of impoliteness, like grounding a child for burping at the dinner table or just a significant disagreement how to respond to publications of dogma/doctrine.
Maureen.
Interesting subject, it doesn’t only apply to the written word but to everything. Today just about every composer has his own website selling his compositions, I wonder how much music we have unpublished in cupboards in our music departments?
Today with technology you don’t need publishing houses, you don’t need to have it printed just put it on as an eBook.
Re the power of editors, yes, they have the power to include in their magazines or not. The editor of the Salvationist UK decided sometime a go that she was not going to print letters which had been sent in, now we only get them now and then. I remember sending in a letter to the Musician UK, it was so heavily edited that the only thing recognisable was my name.
Today we have Blog, Facebook, twitter and others made available to us. It must be driving people who want to control what we say nuts. Challenge, Contradict, Confirm, Converse, Convey, is all good for our soul.
Roy