I confess that I had to look up the word that is all over the news here to find its exact meaning, though the meaning that the media are giving it is clear from the context.

Redacted.

Following on from the newspapers publishing all those revelations about MPs expenses the Government has issued what it claimed was going to be a full and transparent list of all MPs expenses. It's transparent in the sense that a brick wall is transparent. Great swathes of it have been hidden from view by blocking it out. In one page in today's Metro, allegedly from Tony Blair's expenses the whole page has been blacked out except for a single number that could represent anything at all.

This process is being referred to everywhere as "redaction". My dictionary doesn't say that "redact" means "censor" it says that it means "prepare for publication", though I suppose that in the case of this Government the terms are more or less interchangeable.

MW Online says of "Redact":

Main Entry:
Function:
transitive verb
Etymology:
Middle English, from Latin redactus, past participle of redigere
Date:
15th century

1: to put in writing : frame
2: to select or adapt (as by obscuring or removing sensitive information) for publication or release ; broadly : edit
3: to obscure or remove (text) from a document prior to publication or release

I've always thought of it as censoring, and am surprised after a career in publications and editing that I never knew or heard it used in the sense of "preparing for publication!"

Wordmatic

It's mostly used in government publications when sensitive or secret info is part of something be sent out to the press and public.
"Sensitive" can protect a lot of people and things.

There has recently been another scandal in Illinois where unqualified, but politically connected, students have been admitted. There has been an investigatory panel set up, but the University of Illinois administrators have "redacted" much of the important data:

quote:

In response to a Tribune request under the Freedom of Information Act for documents related to U. of I. admissions, the university turned over about 1,800 pages, some of which were heavily redacted.

I don't think it means "censored" exactly, but it is often used in legal or governmental circumstances for removing information for confidentiality.

I only came across the word redact when I was asked to do it. We occasionally get requests under the Freedom of Information Act to release certain documents, and we have to remove certain details that might enable personal information to be discovered.

I do it a lot more subtly, though; instead of ugly black rectangles, I use white ones. In some places you can't at first see if there was a line of data or just a white space.

quote:

I don't think it means "censored" exactly, but it is often used in legal or governmental circumstances for removing information for confidentiality.

If "removing information" isn't censorship, then what is censorship?

If "removing information" isn't censorship, then what is censorship?

Redaction is also a lit crit term (link). Some redacting could be due to censorship, but if an author, during the course of editing some text, makes some edits based on say accuracy, rhetoric, or taste, then I would not call that censorship.

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
If "removing information" isn't censorship, then what is censorship?

Redaction is also a lit crit term (link). Some redacting could be due to censorship, but if an author, during the course of editing some text, makes some edits based on say accuracy, rhetoric, or taste, then I would not call that censorship.

Which is why I feel that it's the wrong word here, a deliberately obscure technical term chosen in a futile attempt to pretend that what they are doing is NOT censorship. By insisting on calling it redaction I believe they are trying to hoodwink the public into believing that they are doing nothing wrong. Most of the information in this "full and transparent" exercise has been redacted out of existence.

Is there a legal definition of "redact?" Of late it seems politicians and/or governments have increased their use of not-quite-synonyms to make their nafarious actions seem proper. "Rendition" is another that comes to mind.

According to Wordweb, the word means "...Prepare for publication or presentation by correcting, revising, or adapting...".

No mention of bowdlerising or censoring.

As Bob says, the authorities have deliberately chosen an obsure word to try to deny the fact that they are censoring the expenses information in order to keep from the public any detail that might embarrass them even further (if that be possible).

On Question Time last night the two MPs on the panel both denied that the censorship had anything to do with them, blaming instead the faceless civil servants whose job it was to collate and publish the information.

Come back Sir Humphrey, all is forgiven. Even you would never have sunk to the despicable depths we are now seeing plumbed.

According to Gordon Brown et al the "system" is to blame, not those who took advantage of it. Those who did "take advantage of it" say that they acted within the rules. The trouble is that "the rules" when made, assumed a level of restraint, fairness and self restraint sadly lacking in today's elected representatives. It is truly amazing to watch these people on TV, having been caught out, calling for "the system" to be reformed. This is akin to someone committing murder the complaining that murder should be made illegal to stop such evil practices. It's not their fault it's the fault of the system.
Do they really believe that using redact instead of censor will fool any of the people any of the time.

Judging from our English posters here, I am thinking the British politicians do not have an easy go of it, no matter who is in office.

quote:

If "removing information" isn't censorship, then what is censorship?

I guess I'd see the word, at least how it was used in the link that I published, as a legal term to remove confidential information from public documents. That really isn't censorship because (assuming the redacters are being honest) they are just removing that information which isn't legally available to the public. After all, the confidential information could possibly hurt the people involved. Again, this is all assuming it's being done by for honest reasons. In the link I posted, the university administrators claimed they were trying to protect the students who were involved by redacting the information. Redacting the names would have been appropriate; however, clearly those administrators redacted too much information to protect themselves as well. Therefore, they were censoring parts of it.

Censorship, however, is when people decide what the public should or shouldn't read. Unlike redacting, censoring is not based on confidentiality or legalities...and no third parties would be hurt if it were read. Censorship is subjective, based on the values of those in power.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

Judging from our English posters here, I am thinking the British politicians do not have an easy go of it, no matter who is in office.

Quite frankly our politicians are getting only what they deserve. Incompetence, dishonesty and self-serving activities are common amongst MPs of all colours, although the present crowd of goons have probably set new low points in all these areas.

Reviving a thread...

This word is certainly in the news: Swine

Because we call it swine flu, rather than H1N1, the pig farmers in the U.S. are suffering terribly. While H1N1 has nothing at all to do with pigs, it has been a major factor in the economics of pig farming. It really goes to show how important words are.

Maybe it has to do with Al Capp, the creator of L'il Abner. Remember SWINE? (Students Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything) In today's parlance, them there students "went viral!"

quote:

Al Capp, the creator of L'il Abner. Remember SWINE

Who can forget Moonbeam McSwine?

Wipe that leer off your puss, Proof!

Here's a word not too many can actually define: Democracy.

But someone once did just that.

WHAT IS DEMOCRACY?
“To me, democracy means placing trust in the little guy, giving the fruits of
nationhood to those who built the nation. Democracy means anyone can grow up to be
President, and anyone who doesn’t grow up, can be Vice President. Democracy is people
of all races, colors and creeds united by a single dream: to get rich and move to the
suburbs, away from people of all races, colors and creeds.

“Democracy is buying a big house you can’t afford with money you don’t have to
impress people you wish were dead and, unlike communism, democracy does not mean
having just one ineffective political party; it means having two ineffective political
parties…

“Democracy is welcoming people from other lands, and giving them something to
hold onto – usually a mop or a leaf blower… Democracy means our elected officials bow
to the will of the people, but more often they bow to the big butts of campaign
contributors. Yes, democracy means fighting every day for what you deserve, and
fighting even harder to keep other weaker people from getting what they deserve…

“And finally, democracy is the eagle on the back of a dollar bill, with 13 arrows in
one claw, 13 leaves on a branch, 13 tail feathers, and 13 stars over it’s head. This signifies

that when the white man came to this country, it was bad luck for the Indians, bad luck
for the trees, back luck for the wildlife and lights out for the American eagle. I thank
you.”
Johnny Carson, 1991

While I doubt that Dick Cheney, Rash Limburger, Michael Wiener, or the others in their camp would find it at all funny, I think it's - wellll.... too damned accurate to be funny!

quote:

too damned accurate to be funny!

And he said it ten years ago.