"Why Don't You Submit Your Writing to the Publications?"

Actually, I used to submit pieces to several publications, but when they realized I was so good and influential, they had to put a stop to that -- because only their writers and editors (themselves) could dictate the dialogue and shape what people thought.

That was the "old media" control and why people weren't allowed the freedom to see all the information, alternatives and options -- but only what the editors/copywriters would edit any piece to say -- what they wanted you to say, rather than what you actually wanted to say, in your own way, in your own words.

I told them that was not a wise thing to do -- because in the age of the Internet, they would lock out all the talent and brains on the other side -- just like every trade association (union) tries to define and protect their own turf, force everybody through their toll booths, and to play "their" game -- "their" way. So they could always claim you weren't writing in their proper "Associated Press" style so they could edit it to say something else entirely, or that nothing new and different could ever be said -- because you could only repeat what had been said before -- from what the AP certified writers only could say.

So rather than just have my words distorted, I just gave up submitting it to the publications -- and wrote exclusively for online forums and blogs, until all the traditional publications had to come around to allowing online discussions. Initially, they still censored (moderated) much of what I wrote, because it was too groundbreaking and radical -- this whole concept of saying what they had never allowed before. But then the participation began to outstrip their ability to "monitor" all the discussions -- and there wasn't enough manpower to maintain that control -- and so they had to presume that readers would notify them of abuses, if they got egregious enough.

But then the unions and other control freaks play their own games of "reporting abuses" just to see if they can regain control of the discussions, and suppress, repress, edit and censor those they don't want anybody else to see.

But people can make up their own minds now -- and decide for themselves what is valid and true, and not just what the publishers and editors tell us is "all the news fit to print," and like the union bosses keep insisting, "they'll do all the thinking and talking for everybody else" -- even on up through the university professors, who if they can't think, talk and represent themselves, what good are they?

So it is a credit to yourself that you can tell these differences -- and not as the old media editors insisted, "They'll never be able to tell the difference, much less appreciate it." I knew they were wrong.

(This reply was "moderated" out of existence at the Honolulu Star-Advertiser.)

I guess I should be flattered to be the most censored writer in America -- but also the most read.