Slashdot Mirror

Free speech does not, nor has it ever, allowed people to lie about someone else.

From the current Project Censored list:

Several recent studies confirm fears that genetically modified (GM) foods damage human health. These studies were released as the World Trade Organization (WTO) moved toward upholding the ruling that the European Union has violated international trade rules by stopping importation of GM foods.

        * Research by the Russian Academy of Sciences released in December 2005 found that more than half of the offspring of rats fed GM soy died within the first three weeks of life, six times as many as those born to mothers fed on non-modified soy. Six times as many offspring fed GM soy were also severely underweight.
        * In November 2005, a private research institute in Australia, CSIRO Plant Industry, put a halt to further development of a GM pea cultivator when it was found to cause an immune response in laboratory mice.1
        * In the summer of 2005, an Italian research team led by a cellular biologist at the University of Urbino published confirmation that absorption of GM soy by mice causes development of misshapen liver cells, as well as other cellular anomalies.
        * In May of 2005 the review of a highly confidential and controversial Monsanto report on test results of corn modified with Monsanto MON863 was published in The Independent/UK.

http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index .htm

On the "Old Fashioned" taunt. The guy who brought macrobiotics to the U.S. made a stopover of some years in Paris. People would occasionally say, "From China? Oh, how primitive." And he would say "Thank you!" To him primitive was something like "primal" with that Asian orientation toward living in harmony with nature. (And to him, cannibals dancing around a camp fire weren't "primitive", they were decadent -- which is an insightful reminder in itself that a society need not pass through technology to become decadent.)

When a futuristic supplemented diet has shown itself to double lifespan in both mice and the first human trials without serious side effects, I'll be first at the door for a mass release. Until then, "old fashioned"? Thank you!

You might want to have a look at this years project censored. In particular, check out #11 Dangers of Genetically Modified Food Confirmed

Please, Ms. Parnes, why doesn't Fox or CNN or ABC or any news or entertainment media entity not get fined $11,000 every time they don't give us all the information?

Well, it's already been ruled that that the media is allowed to lie.

Cohen believes that fuel made from domestic farm products should be subsidized so that they can reduce the need for foreign oil. "We need to develop economical alternative fuel sources that won't fluctuate (like oil prices)," Cohen said. "This observation seems to be missing from the current president's energy plan."

In 2003, Changing World Technologies, Inc. touted its Carthage, Missouri Renewable Environmental Solutions (RES) plant as a "green" solution to U.S. dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels...It promised to turn turkey feces and carcasses into crude oil at a predicted construction cost of $15 million and production costs of $15 per barrel...Backed by such promises and with the support of environmental activists, the federal government gave RES a $5 million grant to build the plant. Now, just two years later and $25 million over budget, the RES plan to turn fowl waste into crude oil has run afoul of financial and chemical realities...The new facility cost about $40 million to build, more than twice the original estimate. Then the plant went far over its targeted production costs, with the product coming in at $80 per barrel--five times higher than estimated and twice the market price for crude oil...And now the plant is releasing a stench that's bothering nearby residents."

It's a joint venture of Conagra. It got $5 million in funding from the U.S. government. It doesn't work. It was in fact, "Turkey Credits". Besides laying this on Democrats - who don't control Congress nor were they at Cheney's secret meetings to develop the nation's energy policy once Bush got in office - is simply foolish.

Suppose you're a librarian and an FBI agent shows up and wants to know the complete list of books and websites this particular Muslim patron looked at. They don't have a court's warrant, but you still have to comply, of course. You're outraged, you want to scream, you want to protest, you want to blog, you want to write a letter to the editor, you want to call your congressman! Oops, nope, can't talk about that, sorry, it's illegal. That's freedom of speech for you, in these United States of America.

The same is true for bank employees, by the way, and everyone working with financial records, including casinos, pawn shops, U.S. Postal Office, car dealerships etc.

Isn't that the place with an appauling human rights record ?

Things like imprisonment without trial , torture and censorship .

"Put it this way: Who do you trust more, the FSF or Microsoft... and why? For that matter, why does someone go to work for Microsoft vs. the FSF or particular FOSS projects? The former is always characterized by money, whereas the latter operates on and advocates for a mix of business models and incentives. Does providing an alternative to vendor-lockin have to mean that someone is "biased" instead of using good judgement?

Just because some people have strong opinions or come to certain conclusions doesn't meant they're "biased". And I must say, this is the typical "Fox News Defense". They won the right to knowingly LIE to viewers in a court of law, then they try to tear down everyone else with innuendos starting with "everyone is biased". That's the defense of someone who cannot convincingly marshall actual facts in response to criticism.

Maybe you should be more concerned with how complete and accurate a picture the different parties are willing to reveal."

Read this very enlightening article on Project Censored. It mentions facts about paper trails and exit polls. The more I learn about the 2004 presidential election, the more I think it's been stolen even more than in 2000. Even a sincere Republican should have serious doubts about its legitimity.

The mass market is about choosing what is the most convenient and most profitable. That almost always means cutting corners to get the job done.

In effect if you can get away with throwing a party and leaving it for someone else to clean up, market rules say you win.

Your James Surowiecki citation leaves out two highly damning issues:
a) the majority of Germans decided that killing Jews was OK and that the Communist Party really was responsible for the Reichstag fire, even though we all know now that this was horribly wrong.

IOW: If we had, in fact, a totalitarian regime that said "kill no Jews", what do you think would have gone wrong then?

b) Apathy + Wealth = Power. If one of you has the wealth and the polluting smokestacks, and 10 scientists oppose you, their 10 to your 1 says they should win. But then again, there's also 100 million people that don't care, so you can overwhelm those 10 scientists with a media blitz. Especially if you own the TV network. Does this ever really happen? Yes it does.

c) More about apathy.

BTW there is a middle ground between totalitarianism by the minority and what we have now: that middle ground is called eloquence and a sense of leadership. Unfortunately that is also stifled because the public is not only apathetic, but also anti-intellectual...

I like this style of argument myself. Thank you.

I think we can show differences between corps and advocacy groups (AGs). The main difference between advocacy groups in general and coporations is where the power comes from and whom it benefits.

Mostly, advocacy groups are using the power of the members to forward the members' agenda. That's pretty much people getting together to make their voices heard. I'm ok with that.

Corporations take the power generated by the work of the employees (and the guidance of managent/board/shareholders, true) and (usually) use it to lobby in the interest of the shareholders. Enlightened shareholders will also try to protect their employees as well, but first and foremost they protect their own interests.

Why should Ballmer and Gates be able to contribute enough cash to swing elections? They are richer than I am, but that should not make their votes any more important than mine. Otherwise you have what is called a plutocracy, and the political function is very similar to the market function of a monopoly. I'm no fan of socialism, but we've just gone too far. And we keep going farther.

Also, not to beat a dead horse, but corporations' right to free speech is derived from an error. There was a Supreme Court case about something else (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company 1886), and this issue was mentioned. While writing up the case summary (nonbinding), a clerk changed the wording to reflect that corp's had that right. It's never really been clarified since, even though it's been revisited by the Court. For more info see:

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/1 3.html

Probably, and mostly due to ignorance. Most Americans seem to have no clue what we did to the people of Nicaragua in order to topple the Sandanista party. All they know is that the Sandanistas were socialist, the current government (claims to be) capitalist, and that socialism is evil and repressive and capitalism is the way God intended humans to live. They know nothing of the inhumane tactics we taught the Contras to use. They know nothing about how repressive the banana republic we set up in place of Nicaragua's government is. They know what the TV told them, which wasn't much.

Kind of frightening to me that people will pay too much attention to any TV news source nowadays. It may have been Fox News who won the right to lie for newscasters, but every other major network and TV news outlet filed supporting briefs in that case.

"[i]As long as the framework is open and transparent, there is reasonable protection afforded to the public.[/i]"

http://projectcensored.org/censored_2006/index.htm #1

this administration has more secrets than any other in american history...

"The Bush Administration has an obsession with secrecy," says Representative Henry Waxman, the Democrat from California who, in September 2004, commissioned a congressional report on secrecy in the Bush Administration. "It has repeatedly rewritten laws and changed practices to reduce public and congressional scrutiny of its activities. The cumulative effect is an unprecedented assault on the laws that make our government open and accountable."

Get the facts read Project censored's No Paper Trail Left Behind:The Theft of the 2004 Presidential Election

http://projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fraud.h tml

Paper is one of the most important aspects of our civilized culture- it provides a physical record of our literature and knowledge. It seems to me that if you can't verify something physically (which will become increasingly difficult as this trend continues), how do you know what is true or accurate? Eventually, truth and accuracy will be embodied in what anyone says is true or accurate, and this can be carefully crafted, monitored, and even changed by those in control.

If you think this is far-fetched, read this. It's a damning review of the 2004 presidential election. My only reason for pointing this out is to provide an example as to how completely messed up things can become without the ability to revert to some form of physical (i.e. paper) reference.

I agree, human enginuity is mind blowing. Yes I am being fairly pessimistic. I think a pessimistic outlook is good at the current stage because the problem of peak oil is approaching rapidly and I see way way too little being done to prepare for it.

The US government had a study commissioned into the effects of peak oil and what we might do to aleviate them. You can find it here:

http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/The_Hirsc h_Report_Proj_Cens.pdf

Basically he says that unless we start preparing in a serious way 15-20 years before peak oil occurs we are going to have mighty big problems and that if we wait until it happens to do anything we are screwed. Maybe he's just being incredibly pessimistic but the guy makes sense to me.

Here here. Let's please not focus on ID just because it is the latest thing to come out of this government. Rather, let's focus on the torrent of unsound and unresearched scientific claims made by the administration and the stifiling of scientists who strongly oppose such intrusion.

Here's a great place to start:

"Big Media" news organizations have actually sued for the right to lie to their viewers!
Even sadder is that the case was ruled in their favor.

"The euro area's GDP was only 60% the size of America's in 2001. If current exchange rates are sustained [circa December 2003], it swells to around 80%. If the economies of Britain, Sweden and Denmark are added to the euro area, the European Union now has a slightly larger economy than that of the United States."
Source

"On November 6th of 2000 Iraq became the first country to receive all of its oil export payments in euros instead of American dollars. This switch was estimated to cost Iraq $270 million dollars, but Iraq had since actually come out on top due to the rise in the value of the euro, which was actually probably influenced by Iraq's decision to use the euro as its foreign exchange currency."
Source

"the US ... installed its own authority to rule the country and as soon as Iraqi oil became available to sell on the world market, it was announced that payment would be in dollars only."
Source

Corporations have been doing it through IMF, WB, WTO, etc.. for years, through it may (or may not, I'm not that up to date) be relatively new to the software industry.

For one example, http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2001/1 5.html

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/2 2.html Educate yourself..

they attempted to block us from going to war...in our own security interests...in the world's security interests...in accordance with previous UN resolutions

When did this happen? Because what you're describing in no way resembles the current U.S. invasion of Iraq.

France attempted to dissuade the U.S. from taking an illegal, immoral, and stupid action. Unfortunately Bush II has had a hard-on for a Gulf War II since coming into power, and has taken full advantage of our version of the Reichstag fire to make it happen.

Sorry, I can't find any of the articles from the Project Censored list for 2004 or the new 2005 list on Newsmax.com.

Or have I misunderstood you?

Sorry, I can't find any of the articles from the Project Censored list for 2004 or the new 2005 list on Newsmax.com.

Or have I misunderstood you?

...since the corporate media refuse to report on them.

The BBC however is hardly free of self-censorship, and its news is presented very much from the point of view of the cliques that run it.

The best news IMHO is dominated neither by governments nor corporations, but there's not a lot of that around these days, at least not on television or in dailies.

Didn't fox argue that you do need to tell the truth in the news anymore. The original article and a site about it.

Professional journalism can give the appearance of being objective, but if you believe it is, then I've got a bridge to sell you. There is *always* bias.

Your emphasis on professionalism is retarded. All that professional means is someone was paid to write their articles. Sometimes they may be fact checked and sometimes they reviewed by a an editorial board, but the notion that being a professional automatically means a reporter has some sort of "objectivity" is laughable.

Everyone and every institution has an axe to grind, whether they admit it or not. Take a look around and pick your viewpoint, but Project Censored and Manufacturing Consent might be a good start.

As for lack of respectability, off the top of my head I can think of at least three widely read, respected blogs: DailyKos, Instapundit, Joel On Software.

99.99% of the blogs out there won't achieve the respect or visibility of some mainstream publications, but then again you could say the same thing for 95% of the newspapers out there.

'A bill has been introduced to amend HAVA. H.R.2239 and its twin Senate counterpart S.1980, discussed further here, will amend the Help America Vote Act such that there is "a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy" attached with each and every ballot cast by every voter, and that "any voting system containing or using software shall disclose the source code of that software to the Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code available for inspection upon request to any citizen". Additionally, the three electronic voting manufacturers already have the ability to add permanent, individual voter-verified paper audit trails to their products. Some e-voting critics make it seem like vendors are resisting. However, it is the local election boards that are resisting (as well as the slow march of bureaucracy). The e-voting vendors will build - and sell - whatever municipalities will buy.' Thanks for the links to these Bills, its a little bit too though late eh? You say that the election wasnt "stolen", you simply dont know this. I agree with the slow march of bureacracy (which is exploited by the powerful), but Im definitely not inclined to believe that the 2 sister companies who create these voting machines are to be trusted at all until there is more disclosure suggesting otherwise, especially when you consider all the circumstancial evidence.. http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/6 .html/ http://www.bartcop.com/110904votes.htm/ FACT: Rep. Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska ran the first "field test" of the voting software, running for senate while still CEO of ES&S. His company counted the votes and his victory, in a predominantly black and Democratic district which had not voted Republican in a hundred years, and involving a multi-point swing from pre-election polls, was considered by the press "an amazing upset."

LMAO, they'd never allow that. It's not in their interest. Better start writing to our congressmen eh? http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/6 .html/ http://www.bartcop.com/110904votes.htm/

...as programming the american public to be a bunch of scared sheep to vote for you.

Indeed. The wost fraud is taking place in plain sight. The problem is that for over 20 years there has not been a single candidate presented in a serious light that has not been a typical neoliberal "There is no alternative" Reganite/Thatcherite. This of course makes sense, because the media outlets are corporate entities, and cannot be expected to cover something against their interests. Nor do they have to, the media can legally lie. The fact is, we're living in a one party system; democracy is dead in america and has been for a long time.

The U.S. Press is not on the level of China (yet), you are very mistaken if you believe that we have a free press in the true sense. Look for stories about voting irregularities in the 2004 presidential election, war protest, or potentialy disastrous results of our current fiscal policy on the large media outlets like FOX. Also, check out:

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/

I really don't get it, all the main news organization have lied or purposely omitted facts, and those were not small fact or stuff that didn't matter. Just check project censored to see a few examples for your self. And people go crying blogs should not be trusted, sure I would agree with you if you said 99% of the blogs can't be trusted, but it dosen't mean that all of them are bad. Some can actually be better then fox or cnn.

Technically unrelated to this article, but Fox News did go to court for making a story appear the oppisite of the facts. They lost at first, but won on appeal. Now they are suing journalists who refused to publish the false version of the report for court costs.

Fox News was able to get a court to rule that they have no responsibility to tell the truth because there is no specific law that say they have too. So if a news station can not be required to report on things honestly, then I don't think there is much change of getting a company (especially MS) to do so.

On of Many Links to this story

It's documented in many places that this administration & his Gang-o-thugs have wanted to go into Iraq for quite some time.

For example, just recently:
Info from Bush Ghost Writer (misleader.org)
Other articles to look at:

in 2000, Bush wanted to invade Iraq if elected
Neoconservative plan for global dominance
US Dollar vs the Euro: Another reason for the invasion of Iraq
US Rejected Peace offerings from Iraq and Afghanistan
Report Proves Bush Knew He Was Lying About Iraq

There are more, you just have to go look, and look beyond the distortion of facts that gets in the media and in the ads. (Neither party seems to care about real facts this election).

It's documented in many places that this administration & his Gang-o-thugs have wanted to go into Iraq for quite some time.

For example, just recently:
Info from Bush Ghost Writer (misleader.org)
Other articles to look at:

in 2000, Bush wanted to invade Iraq if elected
Neoconservative plan for global dominance
US Dollar vs the Euro: Another reason for the invasion of Iraq
US Rejected Peace offerings from Iraq and Afghanistan
Report Proves Bush Knew He Was Lying About Iraq

There are more, you just have to go look, and look beyond the distortion of facts that gets in the media and in the ads. (Neither party seems to care about real facts this election).

It's documented in many places that this administration & his Gang-o-thugs have wanted to go into Iraq for quite some time.

For example, just recently:
Info from Bush Ghost Writer (misleader.org)
Other articles to look at:

in 2000, Bush wanted to invade Iraq if elected
Neoconservative plan for global dominance
US Dollar vs the Euro: Another reason for the invasion of Iraq
US Rejected Peace offerings from Iraq and Afghanistan
Report Proves Bush Knew He Was Lying About Iraq

There are more, you just have to go look, and look beyond the distortion of facts that gets in the media and in the ads. (Neither party seems to care about real facts this election).

Corporate "personhood" is all based on the 1886 tax case of California's Santa Clara county and Southern Pacific Railroad. The court ruled on specific tax liabilities of the corporation, but the court clerk included, in the headnotes, the otherwise unsupported assertion that "[...] corporations are persons within the intent [...] of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution [...]". The clerk seems to have been employed by the railroad, which owned the local newspapers which promoted the faked decision. These headnotes aren't precedents, but they are the entire precedential basis for later corporate "rights". Then, in 1978, (now-Chief) Justice Rehnquist wrote the dissenting opinion in the 5-4 Supreme Court case that gave corporations the right to give unlimited money to "political causes". Rehnquist thought the 1886 "decision" was wrong. It came up in the "Nike v. Kasky" case before the Court, and it ought to come up again and again until the scam is dispelled.

Corporate "personhood" turns out to be extremely fragile. We can promote these cases in the media to equalize the corporate lawyer consciousness of them with public awareness. These decisions go wrong in the dark, and the light of day makes it much harder for them to work against us. To date, most of that "light" has been corporate media editorials in favor, of course, of corporate personhood. So this latest chapter has begun, with some surprising allies and unsurprising enemies. It's also worthwhile to note that a reelected Bush will almost certainly send at least one or two new justices to the Court, and maybe as many as four - including, ironically, a replacement for Rehnquist much less likely to exhibit the traditional "Conservative" philosophy of headlines merely summarizing stories, rather than extrajudicial end-runs around justice.

The FCC rarely seems to be acting in the public interest these days. Here is an interesting article about how they're reducing access to the internet for the benefit of corporations.

"Because our history showed that if you let the hijackers land the plane in Cuba or whereever, everyone walks away alive."
Who said anything about shooting them down? This is a strawman, you are taking a single point, misrepresenting it, and acting like you've countered the whole argument. Whether the planes were to be shot down or not, standard procedure is for interceptors to be airborne inside of 5 minutes. Look it up. They were not. How could that happen? The simple fact is it couldn't happen, by accident anyway. The drills they were running were a smokescreen to provide "plausible confusion" to support the standdown orders if they came to light, but the media hasn't even dug THAT far.

I can provide you with a mountain of links about this stuff, but I'm not going to waste my time because you've already decided this is not a credible theory, and I doubt anyone else will read this by now (sorry if this strikes you as apathetic, but I've had this discussion on many other forums). If you're truly interested in learning the facts, you can find them yourself. I provided enough points for the curious. Read everything you can from both sides and make up your mind after.

"Can anyone sane believe that Bush is powerful enough to do this and then prevent his opponents from bringing up these charges?"
Independent, investigative journalism is dead in the US. All we have left is sad, pathetic gasps like Memogate. The mainstream media is dangerously centralized. Why does a CNN search for Nader return 500 results, but 0 for Badnarik? Did you look up Ellen Mariani? Her lawyer filed a press release with 3000 journalists. Only a single one bothered to show up (Fox), and they didn't even run a story on it. That is why there are no "credible" sources on this.

Actually I lied, here is one link for ya: ProjectCensored, a bunch of stories your media doesn't think is newsworthy. Check out #11, "The Media Can Legally Lie". Isn't that great? #9 is Ellen Mariani.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff approved Operation Northwood, which was essentially terrorist actions against Americans to drum up support to invade Cuba.

Modern evidence supports the scenario that Pearl Harbour was deliberately instigated and allowed to allow the US to enter WW2.

Is it such a stretch from that to thinking 9/11 was allowed to happen?

"And when does anything bad happen in the U.S. that is not followed by a sting of lawsuits for every conceivable reason, no matter how outrageous?"
Maybe you can show me the strings of lawsuits accusing the government of mass murder and treason following other atrocities? Further, even if there were, it does not disprove the current ones. Your reasoning is specious.

A recent Zogby poll showed that ~50% of New Yorkers believe that Bush and co. had advance knowledge of 9/11. I think it's something like 70% of Canadians. I don't recall the numbers but I believe a majority do not believe the 9/11 Comission Report.

"Half of Americans believe in horoscopes and a huge chunk of us believe in alien abductions, crystal power, Scientology, the Trilateral Commission, faked Moon landings and any number of unprovable claims. How is this any different?"
What's different about this is there IS evidence for this. A great deal of it. Most are blinded by denial. Ignorance is bliss.

You didn't refute any of my points, just made a weak stab at the air defense one and dismissed the rest as fantasy.

XM is in bed with Clear Channel Communications. Remember The problem with the Dixie Chicks?

Free internet access available in our public schools and libraries strengthens the association in the publics' mind between first ammendment rights and internet publication and access rights.

The problem is that alternative news sources don't respect the "talking points" and propaganda that are so essential to the so-called "war on terror". How can the owners of our socitety herd us in the direction they believe we need to go when there is a grass-roots movement on the internet to poke holes in the false rationals we're being given?

For this reason I believe the near future we will see efforts to make it more difficult to access or publish alternative news on the internet, especially if Bush is re-elected.

Just take a look at what the mainstream news media didn't bother to tell you last year: http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/i ndex.html.

Alternative news sources on the internet were all over these stories. For example take a look at what Michael Ruppert (editor of an internet news site) had to say on the subject of Project Censored's #1 censored story of 2004: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/PDF/Commonwealth. pdf

Its the most imporant 50 pages you will read all year, but the mainstream news media has ignored it.

Like THIS for example ... and how about THIS as well..

What you should be saying you 'dont get' is how this White House Administration has its grips on so-called "American Free Media", and is suppressing all news about criminal investigations, currently ongoing, into the current Administration .. the answer is, of course, the FEMA Act.

You're forgetting that the first President Bush was the first person to use nuclear weapons since WWII.

Lying about getting a blow-job is nothing. Hell, it never should have been brought up. It's not something that should've been made public. FDR was a cripple, JFK was a womanizer, and James Buchanan was a homo. There's nothing there that Americans should care about. It's none of our business.

I'm not a left-winger, I think both sides suck. Although I do admire that the Right will stab you in the face, while the Left has to stab you in the back.

Did you guy's notice that Fox has the court approved right to lie anyway? Not that our european counterparts are any better, it's just - you can't trust *ANY* official information anymore.

If I remember right this link has been provided by slashdot anyway, just to bring it back to attention: Top 25 Censored Stories.

Unfortunately, that's not all American affairs anymore. The US government is the mightiest government in the world, it's plain ruthless and dangerous. They don't care about people, they just care about their own power. I don't want to have your DRM, your patent system, your hire & fire and all the other American trash they try to force on Europe too (too protect the interests of the customers of course).

If you elect Bush again, then you really deserve him (poor world, but it's a democracy). Anyway, I think It's good when some observers take a look at that president's fingers at the election, so it at least does not go unnoticed when you switch to a dictature.

Don't get me wrong - I like the US and I have a lot of friends there, but your mighty people are even nastier than ours.

god bless you all and may he force the fallen angels out of our world.

CMW REPORT, Spring 2003 Title: "Court Ruled That Media Can Legally Lie" Author: Liane Casten

ORGANIC CONSUMER ASSOCIATION, March 7, 2004 Title: "Florida Appeals Court Orders Akre-Wilson Must Pay Trial Costs for $24.3 Billion Fox Television; Couple Warns Journalists of Danger to Free Speech, Whistle Blower Protection" Author Not Listed

The story summary said specifically "mainstream media dissected", so I just had to suggest my site. While I'm at it, I'll mention my direct "competitors" that I know of that also fit that description:

• unknownnews.net
• Take Back the Media
• projectcensored.org

Isn't it a little peculiar that the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to keep somebody off the ballot, but yet this gets little to no coverage in the mainstream media? However, can you imagine the shock and revolt the Democrats would spew out if the Republicans were trying to keep a candidate off the ballot?

If you want to really see underreported stories, read project censored.

This story doesn't qualify, because clearly there is a different angle to it, which is that instead of democrats trying to get nader OFF the ballot contrary to the law, it is republicans trying to get nader ON the ballot contrary to the law. So if they weren't reporting this story you'd hear accusations of pro-republican bias.

I don't know anything about that, but I do know that Fox, the bastion of journalistic truth telling integrity, has argued in court they have a right to distort news.

I think everyone who listens to any of the major media outlets and imagine themselves listening to a reliable news source is greatly deceived. They should think long and hard on these proverbs:
Bad is called good when worse happens.
Because we focused on the snake, we missed the scorpion.
Believe nothing that you hear and half of what you see.

Take the red pill already.

Here is a link to a story demonatrating how the media can legally lie. The website was posted on /. a few days ago. Regardless of your opinion of Fox News, the case law speaks for itself and applies to all news outlets. Generally speaking, if any outlet touts itself as unbiased, it is a good time to start considering them liars. All media is inheriently biased. The best solution to this dilema to to get information from the broadest possible spectrum of sources so that you can form an educated opinion for yourself instead of relying on the premanfactured opinions of like minded sources. Simply ignoring something because you don't like it hurts no one but yourself. You wouldn't see a debate between two politicians who didn't research the other side. If they didn't, how would they know what the other persons talking points are, and how to formulate a good response?

Which argument would carry more weight in a discussion with your peers: "I don't like the director so I won't see it; it's a completely false movie" or "I've seen the movie and here is a list of points I disagree agree with and why"? Moore has already stated that he doesn't care if people download his film, as long as it's not being distributed for profit. Why not download it? Next time this argument comes up on /. you can list specific details that you disagree with instead of disagreeing on simple politics.