[A gripe by Zube, Feb 27, 1998]

Prologue
--------

It's bad enough when magazines congratulate themselves, but when they
praise their own hypocritical censorship practices, it's time for
a reality check.

Now for the record:  publishers can edit to their heart's content in
any way they wish, as the first amendment does not apply.  If a
publisher decides to not run stories on a particular topic, that is 
his/her right.  However, it would be less cowardly if they admitted 
that up front.

---

Consider the following Letter to the Editor in May 1996 Next Generation:

"From what I gather, your publication is supposed to be aimed at a
slightly older and more mature gaming population, to which I belong.
I noticed while flipping through one of your issues that something 
seemed different regarding the ad for Wipeout for PlayStation.  I found
the same ad in a back issue of another gaming magazine and upon comparing
the two, I noticed that your run of the ad censored (erased) [sic] the
blood from the boy's and girl's faces and shirts.  Please, you're playing
to an older reader.  I think we can handle a little fake blood.  It's
a small query but a valid one.  Censorship is just another form of
oppression.  -- James McGary, Short Hills, NJ"

Here is the reply:

*******
"Those who compile the letters were as puzzled as you to notice this, so
we asked the powers that be why the ad was changed.  Here's a (semi)
official statement:  'The Wipeout ads arrived at Next Generation offices
just days after an extended debate with one of the nations' key retailers
concerning violent and misogynistic images in game magazines.  On several
occasions in 1995 game magazines were removed from newsstands because of
complaints about such images (although NG was not one of them).  On seeing
the 'bloody' version of Wipeout ad we decided, unilaterally not to 
print the ad with the blood.  Not only were we concerned about having 
Next Generation pulled from retailers, but also there was a general
feeling among people here that the ad actually gained little -- other
than shock value -- from the blood.'

"Next Generation is opposed to censorship in its most insidious forms
and we are extremely aware of the maturity and intelligence of our
readers.  Indeed, our take on this incident is not that we were patronizing
anyone, but that any advertiser who thinks a splash of blood and shock 
tactics will be enough to make an NG reader by their game is fooling 
himself.

"So that's the official line.  Blood, who needs it?"

*******

Let's examine this response.

First, NG was never pulled from the newsstands previously, yet was worried
that perhaps it might be if it displayed bloody and misogynistic 
images.  No problem.  If they want to protect their circulation, that is
their right.

Second, they "unilaterally" decided not to print the ad with the blood.
Of course, we don't really know who "they" are or how many "they" are,
but one thing is clear:  not a single one cares one whit for free speech
when circulation is on the line.  While not a trait I look for in magazines,
that too is their right.

Next, we are treated to a judgment call.  The blood in the ad doesn't
add much except shock value.  That may be true.  However, it is interesting
that *they* decide that, instead of letting the reader make up his/her mind.

Now we get to the funny bits.  NG is opposed to censorship in its
"most insidious forms."  Of course, since the ad was censored the
censorship must not be insidious, and thus OK to NG.  Proof by definition
is a pleasant form of sophistry, eh? 

It becomes even funnier in the second part of the sentence, where they
say that they are extremely aware of their audience's intelligence and
maturity.  Obviously not.  Intelligent and mature people can make their
own choices and decisions without anyone else deciding what they should
or should not see.  

Now we come to the best bits.  Given that the last sentence was a 
complete dodge, we now get to something even better.  Now, says NG,
the *real* reason we did all this was to tell all those nasty game 
companies (bad companies, bad) that blood and shock tactics will not
fool our intelligent and mature readers.

Let me get this straight.  NG claims an intelligent and mature readership,
yet these same readers don't get to see the uncensored ad.  Instead,
they *remove* the blood and *that* will somehow tell the companies what
an intelligent readership the magazine has?  

In fact, it does just the opposite.  Intelligent readers (and gamers)
don't buy games because an ad has blood in it.  Indeed, some may think
just as the editors do, and spurn the game completely.  However,
immature readers may indeed find such an ad attractive and buy the game
for the blood.

(In addition, by censoring the ad, the magazine isn't giving all
the information a reader needs to make sound judgments.  An ad with 
gratuitous blood may lose much of an intelligent readership; censor
that ad and perhaps more "intelligent" readers will give it a second look.
What a punishment!  You bad company, have some more sales.)

In short, NG is trying to have it both ways.  Either the readership is
intelligent, in which case it doesn't need NG's censorship, or it isn't.

The final bit, "Blood.  Who needs it?" is perhaps the most hypocritical
of the entire piece.  Just how many ads in NG over the past several years 
have contained blood in them without comment or censorship?

Ah, my kingdom for a backbone.