The censorship in the media is often as subtle as money. Publishers have 'formula' books. They are the books that sell. Why do they sell? Because Formula books are the only books published by mainstream publishers. It is a case of take it or leave it.
There is even a formula for 'controversial' books that fit into a very narrow range of allowed content.

It is extremely unlikely that anyone reading these posts have experienced ideas outside of the very narrow range allowed by the thought police.
That is beginning to change with the internet but it will take generation before the narrow blind dogmatic views installed into pre-internet die out. And even that is doubtful because the internet now uses site such as 'Face book' to control the thinking of the new generations.

There is much riding on keeping a population within a very limited thinking regime. If people thought for themselves advertising it sell the latest fad would be dead. Politicians could not survive without telling the truth. Society as we know it would collapse.
This 'left' and 'right' thing is just another way of keeping people within limits. You can look at John Pilger's work and label him 'far left' and that way you do not have look at what he has to say because he has been given a label that is outside your approved thinking. Basically John is at the limits of what the thought police will let him get away with but is still very close to centre for the truths you do not know about, or will ever be allowed to hear.

There is a quote 'It is lucky for governments that the people do not think.' That came for Adolf Hitler and has recently been proved to be true yet again by George Bush. Dictators left and right know the secret of keeping the people under control. In recent years it has become more subtle but is as strong as it ever was. If Hitler had learnt to be a little subtle the Third Reich would still be with us.

'Vicious colonial wars and political, economic and environmental corruption cry out for a place on the big screen. Yet, try to name one recent film that has dealt with these, honestly and powerfully, let alone satirically.'

A Hollywood film? Perhaps not. Although Thankyou for Somking was a funny film. It could be about censorship, but also could be about what people want to watch. Inevitably someone has to make the decision (usually the one putting up all that money) to make these films. Hollywood's run by Jews isn't it;-)

Daviy,

Such conspiracy theories. I think people rather tend to subconciously re-inforce what they 'know' to be true. It's part of creating a consistant world view. That's why you probably wont find someone like SJF reading Henderson or Bolt (unless to enjoy hating them, I know I like to read Miranda Divine to get myself all worked up). Aparently her tastes are even too far left for the ABC, so pehaps she consoles herself in the feminist discussion groups she attends.

Point is, people self-censor, then by natural variation of opinion, dictate the marketability of different world views.

I went through a 'stage' of reading Chomsky and Pilger. There's some intersting food for thought but then it gets all a bit same old same old. Kind of lends to my theory that these guys themselves are too focussed on collecting evidence for their fairly narrow, minority world view.

BTW: I don't think any world view is more valid than another. And I think it's pretty conceited to think if only the world could open their eyes and think like you. As Jim Morrison once said, ' you're all a bunch of focking slaves!'. If some in the audience are offended by that opinion, leading to less sales, well, it's not really censorship now is it.

Daviy

'Because Formula books are the only books published by mainstream publishers. It is a case of take it or leave it.'

Having worked in publishing for many years, I'd say that's about right. The reading public remains blissfully unaware of how most publishing decisions are made. People have a tendency to think that authors write manuscripts, submit them for publication, and then the editors decide whether or not the book will sell.

This process does happen but it's rare - especially for non-fiction. Routinely speaking, publishers decide on future publishing projects at least a year or two in advance and then commission authors to write the manuscripts. Even then, the authors often get a set of guidelines and regular updated reviews and appraisals on what the publisher wants written. Although I haven't worked in the film industry or media, from what I gather from those who do, a similar process occurs there too.

Houellebecq

Either you and I live in totally separate universes or there are two different journalists in Australia going by the name of Miranda Devine.

The Miranda Devine I know belongs to that triumvirate of unashamedly right-wing feminism-slaggers - along with Janet Albrechtson and Angela Shanahan - that forged their careers from the frontlines of the Howard era culture wars.

If there is another feminist journalist somewhere called Miranda Devine (Divine?), she is welcome to join my feminist discussion group. However, if that other previously mentioned journalist called Miranda Devine even THINKS about doing so, I’ll burn my ‘Don’t call me Girlie’ badge

SJF,

I think everyone does live in a different universe to everyone else. But I think you have misread my post, or made some assumptions about my politics.

'The Miranda Devine I know belongs to that triumvirate of unashamedly right-wing feminism-slaggers...'

Yes she does, which is why I cant stand her. But I am compelled to read what she says so I can enjoy hating her. I also have a theory that she is there primarily to wind up lefty Herald readers so they can race to have a winge on the letters page.

I also read Piers for a laugh.

So why did you think I would like Miranda? Or why did you think I was saying you would like Miranda, I was implying the opposite. Or did you think I was so right wing, and hating Miranda, so we must live in different worlds?

Houellebecq.
Do you ever get tired of saying 'Conspiracy theory' every time there is something said you do not like? I don't enjoy hating anyone. It is a total waste of time. I have an opinion (one of many) that it is impossible to oppose anything unless you know what you are opposing. Hence read anything from any source and if it is deemed necessary to form an opinion about anything there is at least a chance that it might be an informed opinion.

Making judgments about another motives or what they would read is something you just cannot do. If a person is 'always left' or 'always right' then they are nothing more than a robot.

Everybody has a minority view. No matter what we do we are in a minority. Most Politicians win there seats with a minority. More people voted against most politicians than for them, but they still won their seats with the largest minority, plus a little shuffling of preferences to give the impression of a majority. So John Pilger's view is a minority view. So what? So is yours and mine.

My original point. Left and right are only names that give the limits of allowable thought. They mean nothing and the use of them in a debate such as this means nothing. The debate is about if censorship exists in films? If it does then John Pilger is correct no matter how many disparaging 'lefty' remarks you make.

Daviy,

When someone talks about 'thought police' then a conspiracy theory is self evident. ‘Big Brother' trying to 'control the populace'? I think Huxley was more on the money than Orwell.

'uses site such as 'Face book' to control the thinking of the new generations'
What is their end goal? World domination? Is the CIA involved? Facebook have a marketing tool they haven't worked out how to make the maximum money out of yet. Why, because people are fickle. If they piss anyone off with ads or sell their info, the next MySpace type invention will take all their customer profiles. They tried innocently to change the terms and conditions recently and were quickly pulled into line by conspiracy theorists using Facebook itself to advertise their cause.

'It is lucky for governments that the people do not think….proved to be true yet again by George Bush. '

So basically you're saying because Bush got elected, people do not think. I'm sure there are many right wingers who think because Rudd got elected, people do not think. What an arrogant way to see the world.

'Making judgments about another motives or what they would read is something you just cannot do.'
Yeah you can. I just did. There are a hell of a lot of ABC watching Herald readers or ACA watching Telegraph readers out there. Some like to hear about all those dole bludgers and how they should be locked up, the other like to hear about all those poor disadvantaged people who need more help from the heartless government.

PS: Why does everyone think I'm disparaging lefties? I brought up 3 right wing commentators and put them up to ridicule.

PPS: I find it fun to hate people; Wally Lewis, Bette Midler, John Howard, Mike Munroe, Peter Costello, Miranda, Steve Waugh, Harbhajan Singh, Sunil Gavaskar. The joy I've got from those people over the years I cant tell you.