John D Radcliff, Specializing in Interactive Technology & Education!

Censorship of the future

        How can we predict the future?  If we try to control the media as proposed by premediation then isn't this considered a form of censorship?  Why do we need premediaiton to protect us from unknown acts of violence or indecency?
       The movie indusry is a perfect example of the use of premediation strategies.  For example, movies rated PG-13 or Rated "R" state may contain graphic scenes of violence or other indecent acts.  How do they really know that the acts in a film are indecent?  Even though this system determines whether a film is suitable for certain aged audiences, ultimately it is up to the viewer whether or not they want to see a certain film.  Does this play into influencing the viewer into seeing a film or not based on its rating?  If there was not a rating system, then people would see a film based on other factors (storyline, actors, movie reviews, etc.) and not a censorship mechanism influencing their decision. 


        For example, if I want to see the movie "The King's Speech", which is rated R and I am 13 years old, then I would need someone who is at least 18 years old to come with me to see the movie.  If I want to see the movie on my own, then I cannot do this since I am not old enough to do so.  This then influences the movie producers to take out certain scenes or to rewrite scripts based on what kind of audience they want to show the movie too.  So now the movie producers are influenced to sell more movie tickets at the opening weekend of their movie and will modify the movie based on this censorship movie rating mechanism. 
        This way if a 13 year old wants to see the movie "The Kings Speech" and the rating is PG-13 instead of R, then this will possibly influence more people to see this movie.  This is a perfect example of premediation at work were future events, more movie sales, are predicted if a producer censors a movie a certain way.  Then if there was not a rating system in place people from all age groups could see a movie in theaters regardless of the rating on the movie.  

        "The logic of premediation seeks to prevent an unforseen future by proliferating its remediation by current media forms (Premediation, affect and mediality after 9/11, p. 57)."
We base our predictions of the unforseen future by past events.  So now the media plays on 9/11 by keeping everyone on high alert of an unforseen attack by an enemy that may or may not exist.  True that the future is untold and based on choices we make in the present.  So why try to influence the future by advertising thoughts of a preemtive attack that may or may not happen?  I believe this is the nature of human beings and like metioned earlier in this book "concerned the desire to premediate the geopolitical future so thoroughly that the American public would be protected from experiencing a catastrophic event" is used by the U.S. news media to influence a certain view on the public as a whole to reasure people of the danger and try to protect them by using media.  It should be mentioned that using media to predict the future could be seen as a form of censorship and biasis to protect the populous at large. 

        The Homeland Security Advisory System is another system desinged to guide protective measures when specific information to a particular sector or region is received.  This has an influence on how people will travel or not based on this rating system.  If this system was not in place, then how would we be affected as a nation?


        "Precrime is explained in relation to the idea of prediciton, of a future determined by the sequence of past events (Premediation, affect and mediality after 9/11, p. 59)." 
Precrime is taken from the movie "Minority Report" which has 3 psychic people who can see future murders take place and are used to prevent them.  It suggests that if past events occur, then the murder will take place.  The problem with this is if past events take place and giving people the choice of certain outcomes so that they can try to stop the event from happening.  This the question with premediation as described in the movie which is if we have choices layed out in front of us, based on past events, then will knowing this change our behavior?  I see this as a form of censorship since the future has not happened yet and we assume a person is going to commit an act of murder based on a prediction from a past event or a vision of future events.  This is what Tom Cruisies character, John Anderton, is trying to fight against since the psychics predict that his character is going to kill someone.  He then finds out that this event is a setup and tries to prevent this event from happening.

        "Of course medial desire is not always fulfilled, and the strategies of premediation are not always successful (Premediation, affect and mediality after 9/11, p. 62)." 
This is true in that premediation is a prediciton of future events to come based on past events.  It is true that there can be pros and cons in using the strategies of premediation.  The question to ask about this quote would not be in the realm of successful or unsuccessful, but rather why use premediation at all?  This still comes down to can we predict certain events from happening or not based on information we gather, or should we let natural selections of choice determine outcomes of the future?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.