For several months now, I have been writing commentary on ePluribus off and on. Sometimes fresh material, other times a brief writing with a link to a full commentary which I have written on my blog FOCUS (as I have done here on The Blend several times).
Saturday, I reposted in it's entirety a commentary on how local radio can benefit when a local paper fails. One of the moderators was good enough to “bump it up” to the main page.
The other was a brief commentary (with video) regarding a video I had found on YouTube which in length and presentation is similar to a commercial/PSA by a racist hate group which through “medical” data and an inept background song “prove” why blacks and whites should not mix and marry.
The posting itself is brief and I didn't need to say much in regards for making the case that …. “It again proves, that if you look and delve into the lower bowels of YouTube you can find things that will just make you sit there and shake your head in disbelief.”
“Just goes to show you don't have to stand out in a remote field anymore to burn a cross.”
I also suggested that viewers of the hate filled, but not graphic video, click through and flag the video at YouTube as a “message of hate”.
Saturday evening, I went back to see if anyone had read the piece and found a comment from the same moderator who bumped up my other posting.
The following is the exchange between the two of us.
That helps ensure that the reader knows what the video may contain and allows them to know ahead of time whether they want to watch it now or later (if at all), and helps keep the video from spreading when it contains questionable content.
This is what many do when confronted with the ugliness which is still prevelant in our “enlightened” society.
Put it in a closet and hope it goes away.
The video is not graphic, but by the very words contained on screen and which are read, show the still unbeliveable intolerance that permeates the United States.
No, sorry the video stays as is or I will delete the entire posting.
For me to do otherwise goes against everything I stand for as a journalist.
Actually the call should be left to our readers as to whether they wish to see what can be found on YouTube and other video sites without much effort other than doing a word search.
Out of respect and the sensibilities of others I will not write what the word was.
Readers can come to their own conclusion.
If you want to keep the video, at least provide an excerpt or description of content that gives the reader and potential viewer an idea of what to expect, so that if they are in a “not safe for work” situation or somewhere with kids, they won't risk exposing something that could cause problems.
It's the responsibility of a responsible journalist not to waylay their readership.
I'm not calling for censorship; I'm calling for “fair warning” and discretion, without denying access.
There's more than one option. Your call.
One more thing, did you watch the video ?
If you had I really don't think we'd be doing this dog chasing tail routine.
I won't be making any further comments on this matter.
Thank you for your advice and suggestion.
And in the future don't presume to lecture me about being a journalist, I was doing radio reporting and stringing for networks before the I-net was a twinkle in Al Gore's eye.
The posting with the video can be found here at ePluribus