We watched a documentary last week on how the different media entities are covering crime. The Philadelphia news station (I forget at the moment what it was named) covered an extremely high rate of crime, which led to some speculation about whether or not they were being fair to the different racial groups in the area. An Austin television station began self-censorsing their product and left out a large story about a triple murder.

The rational behind the decision was multifaceted but the train of thought that impacted me the most was the idea that someone's life was only worth anything if they were murdered.

I would not have made the decision the Austin news program made, however I could see their logic and was interested to see what someone who didn't write for newspapers for a living would think.

I began asking some of my friends and I was intrigued by some of the answers I received. Now bear with me for a moment while I explain the logic behind my analysis because I believe it warrants explaining.

I took a communication class several years ago called Learning Languages that broke down one's personality into seven parts. Basically, this program took someone's personality and used their primary characteristics to explain why he/she interpreted information the way he/she did. I think it is brilliant.

Through a complicated process of breaking down the personality into extroverted and introverted and intensity levels. Through a personality test the curriculum also establishes whether you are an emotive, cerebral or kinesthetic learner. This allows your personality and communication style to be organized into seven "languages". Everyone has all seven but three will be most dominant. Also, depending on one's "intensity level," either high, medium or low, will establish how easy it is for someone to communicate in a language not in their top three. The higher the intensity the more difficult it is.

Allowances are also given for situations involving personal trauma. Individuals tend to operate in their third language when in distress. The greater the distress someone is in the more likely he is to move back into his top language.

I am a "Contemplator, Shaper, Doer." These are my three top languages and are used to identify why I communicate the way I do. Contemplator and Shaper are the two cerebral languages of the curriculum and Doer is kinesthetic. This gathering means that I communicate completely based on what I can mentally understand or am interested in, which means that when an individual is speaking to me he has to convince me through something that makes sense mentally to me. This does not mean it has to make sense to the rest of society, but simply me. Some of Contemplators charteristics are wanting to learn something simply for the sake of learning. 'Need to know basis' is not in a Contemplator's vocabulary. They want to know everything. Shapers tend to be leaders. They are very good at administrative duties and organize everything, including their mental thoughts, into catagories.

Now, let's go back to the beginning and apply this knowledge to the answers I received about whether or not media should self-censor. I knew the main languages of everyone I posed the question too and I began to see a trend. Individuals who were top Shapers tended to appreciate self-censorship because they didn't need the information. It didn't help them perform their jobs any better or affect them in any way. Emotive languages, someone who feels first and thinks second, didn't often have opinions. Basically, the topic at hand didn't evoke any feeling so they didn't care one way or the other. Myself, and other Contemplators tended to not appreciate the self-censorship as much, simply because other people were decided about the information we should receive. Contemplators didn't really care what the information was they just wanted it. I continue to pose the question to individuals who will take the time to listen of whether the media should self-censor or not and I continue to get a variety of answers. But as I listen to them I continue to be amazed at how communication is everything.