How-Why Vicious Media Gag Authors

…. It cannot be denied that those who hate


as an evil American Empire are now hitchhiking on hate-government bandwagons down the campaign trail.

For example, Ron Paul’s candidacy that is premised on

blaming the government for 9/11 is claimed to be “popular” in the Web. Roasting President George W. Bush and VP Dick Cheney on the fire of invectives [here the bookmark is civil, cool and polite] on the war in


and other Republican faux pas spreads like mushrooms overnight. Prototypes of those published hate write-ups can be seen at [read the last paragraph] [read the title and 4th paragraph].

Note: This authorwarned American Chronicle of legal action iflibelous paragraphs are not removed.AC management complied. ReadAmChron Truncates Personal Attacks To Elude Libel Suit ]. The last paragraph of the 1st article and the 4th paragraph of the 2nd article referred to above, were removed. Go to NWS at

The libelous articles attacked the President and the Vice President of the

United States

using unprintable words! To the censoring Liberal online publication these are okay under its editorial policy for as long as these are written by Liberal activists.

Let’s cite a case: An editorial expose’ of Paul’s candidacy was suppressed. The writer was a veteran journalist who was neither a Liberal nor a Republican.

There was more to this censorship: The published article was not just gagged … all published articles and those appearing in Internet-links written by the censored author, were removed. This victim of censorship was a sticking bone on the side of the censoring left-leaning online publication’s 2008 political agenda ran by a new set of extremely bias Liberal managers. Ergo, the writings of this well-read author have to be eliminated.

Let’s not be confused by this censorship subterfuge in Media management. Candidate Paul is a Republican. Actually, he is a true-blooded Libertarian, politically operating within the shell of the Republican Party. It is not just the conservative population but also the American public in general believed that if Paul is the GOP’s candidate for President in 2008, the Liberals are assured of the next presidency.

One need not be a rocket scientist to figure out why the Liberal Media is promoting, not just protecting, Dr. Paul’s candidacy. Self-interest like charity begins at home.

Democracy argues that we [including the Media] are free to choose any candidate we want. I support anyone’s freedom to elect any candidate to public office, including the right of the Media to support any politician like Dr. Paul even if it is clearly only a political ploy. The objectionable hitch is, only the government is said to violate free speech that is enshrined in the Constitution. This notion breeds violators of our constitutionally guaranteed right to free expression.

For, true enough for purposes of public reckoning, that we normally view violations of the 1st and 4th Amendments with the government and public officials as the culprits. Hardly do we realize that privately owned online publications under which we publish our creative works would violate our freedom of expression and privacy rights. [Borella, Michael S., Computer Privacy vs. First and Fourth Amendment Rights at].

We are now living in the cyber world of computers. Private corporations compete with the government in storing any information about us in a database, and use them against us in violation of our constitutional rights.

Like any other private corporations, a politically biased publication network is actually a storage of information about you and me – about each and everyone of us – especially regular contributors who write for the publication. Nothing is wrong with that, but in this case, the media network used its database in circulating a derogatory e-mail about the censored author that he was a “trouble” writer. And that’s where the slaughter of free speech begins.

To complete the disfiguration blitz of the image of the targeted writer, his photograph accompanied the removed article [only the title remained without the text or body of the article] in the manner photographs of “fugitives” are published to warn the public. The reputation of the award-winning journalist concerned was no doubt maliciously compromised.

The advertised removal was based on information stored in the computerized database which were inaccurate if not totally false.

For instance, the published information that the said author was a “trouble” writer was utterly inaccurate if not maliciously fraudulent. On record, the publication published close to fifty or so articles of the same author that bolstered the corporation’s advertising receipts. The censoring publication would not have enriched itself at the expense of the author if he was a “trouble” writer. What was done was similar to how the government in many instances, abused “criminal records” of innocent victims that committed no crimes.

According to the findings of the Congressional Office of Technology Assistance (OTA) re: Gordon and Churchill, p. 514], “at best, 49.5 percent” of those database records “were complete, correct, and unambiguous…” which led to the miscarriage of justice. (Burnham, p. 74).

We are talking of a media entity, an active private corporation that interacts with the public. Its interaction with the public is clothed with public interest. It is the Fourth Estate that functions like a government of its own. Like a tyrant government, it could choose to be the culprit in violating the 1st and 4th Amendments on its own free will.

The arrogance, which the publication network referred to has shown in committing those violations, rivals that of an abusive governmental authority. The same abuse in


’s time was a blot in American history. In 1967, J. Edgar Hoover, then head of the FBI, created the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). A study conducted in 1982 found that, "…as many as one-third of state records lacked information about the disposition of the cases on file…” which again led to miscarriage of justice. Victimization in this regard was endless.

Even the information stored in "benign" databases similar to that of the censoring publication “…can be used to violate privacy rights.” [Borella, supra].

Many of us in this writing discipline do a free public service feature for the common good. The role we play in this labor of love every time we burn the midnight candle to carve our thoughts in stone in behalf of the commonweal and for posterity – especially in the discussion of critical issues of national importance – aims to accomplish a noble task, and that is to see to it that we live in a healthy society we want, free of tyrants and tyranny, and of despots and despotism. No stalkers of thought suppression should ever walk the planks of our socio-political landscape.

This is the cogent reason as to why unfortunate experiences of this kind should be shared publicly so that we may be on guard. Airing this out is as much the duty of the next writer as it is mine and that of every journalist. #

© Copyright Edwin A. Sumcad. Access October 19, 2007.

The writer is a veteran diplomat-journalist for more than 45 years and a recipient of excellence awards in journalism. He is a former Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations; he is also an economist, a lawyer and an ASEAN specialist on fiscal policy and regional industrial cooperation. His human interest writings and editorial insights appear in other publications and published in several websites. A brief comment may be e-mailed to

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply