Project Censored 2003 Underreported Stories

gobbo writes "Project Censored has released its top 25 underreported stories for 2002-3. Everyone needs to find out about these as part of a daily anti-propaganda vitamin, but /.ers should be particularly interested in #6: "Closing Access to Information Technology," in which Arthur Stamoulis reports on how the conglomeration of control over the physical networks threatens access to content. Alternative links suggested for more info: the Center for Digital Democracy, Media Tank, and Free Press. Double plus good I say, who wants all that information anyway!"

Comments

Great Book....But The Censored Book is Censored!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Although its table of contents reads like a list of stories from any issue of The Onion, every one of the articles in Censored 2003: The Top 25 Censored Stories are true. With chapter titles like "United States' Policies in Columbia Support Mass Murder," "U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water System" and "Bush Appoints Former Criminals to Key Government Roles," the collection covers important news stories that were censored for various reasons. In his introduction, Robert W. McChesney laments the "deplorable" coverage of three of the past year's major stories: the war on terrorism, the Enron scandal and the 2000 presidential election. The articles, selected by Peter Phillips and Project Censored, range from an explanation of how NAFTA has ruined rural farmers in North America to a look at how the federal government bails out failing private prisons. Cartoons by Tom Tomorrow are sprinkled throughout.

list of stories

[Anonymous Coward]

Censored 2004: The Top 25 Censored Media Stories of 2002-2003
#1: The Neoconservative Plan for Global Dominance
#2: Homeland Security?
#3: US Removes Pages from Iraq Report
#4: Rumsfeld's Plan to Provoke Terrorists
#5: The Effort to Make Unions Extinct
#6: Closing Access to Information Technology
#7: Treaty Busting by the United States
#8: US/British forces knowingly use illegal depleted uranium weapons in Gulf War
#9: Where's Afghanistan?
#10: Africa Faces New Threat of Colonialism
#11: U.S. Implicated in Taliban Massacre
#12: Corporate Speech and Corporate Personhood
#13: US Military's War on the Earth
#14: Unwanted Refugees
#15: Venezuela: Bush Administration Behind Failed Military Coup
#16: Plan Puebla-Panama and the FTAA
#17: Clear Channel Monopoly Draws Criticism
#18: Charter Forest Proposal
#19: U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro
#20: For-Profit Military
#21: IMF & World Bank Austerity Policies Come to the US
#22: Welfare Reform Up For Reauthorization and Still No Safety Net
#23: Argentina Crisis Sparks Cooperative Growth
#24: Aid to Israel Fuels Occupation
#25: Convicted Corporations Receive Perks Instead of Punishment

Re:list of stories

[perly-king-69]

Agreed, this is hardly news, at least not in the UK.

What gets me is how we go on about how Saddam gassed the Kurds etc, but hear little mention of how Churchill, in the 1920's also used poisoned gas to kill these peoples.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander?

Re:list of stories

[The Mayor]

Actually, depleted uranium is radioactive. I refer you to the World Health Organization's report on depleted uranium. It is considered "weakly" radioactive, producing about 60% of the radiation of purified uranium of the same weight. As I understand it (and I am not a nuclear engineer), depleted uranium produces alpha and beta radiation. Gamma radiation is the stuff that is more generally considered harmful, requiring a somewhat significant layer of mass (usually lead or concrete) to stop the radiation and prevent exposure. Alpha and beta radiation are able to be stopped by the layer of dead skin on our bodies or the clothing that we wear. The problem with alpha and beta radiation is when they are "stopped" by live cells. This doesn't occur when the munitions are whole, but when a munition strikes its target, very small particles are released into the air. These particles are often ingested, and thus absorbed directly into live cells in the lungs. Alpha and beta radiation absorbed in this manner is considered to be harmful, although the extent of harm that is done is not well known. Given the levels of DU munitions used first in 1991, then again this year, it is safe to say that Iraq provides an excellent case study to analyze the effects of ingested alpha and beta radiation. Given the extremely high levels of birth defects and rare cancers seen by Iraqis since 1991, the general consensus among the medical community is that DU munitions do cause considerable harm when used in battle.

Re:list of stories

[YrWrstNtmr]

Given the extremely high levels of birth defects and rare cancers seen by Iraqis since 1991, the general consensus among the medical community is that DU munitions do cause considerable harm when used in battle.

Given that the WHO, in their DU FactSheet, does not agree with your statement, I call BS.

Potential health effects of exposure to depleted uranium
"Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks).
No consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver.
No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans."

Re:list of stories

[Salgak1]

And no, DU isn't illegal in the US. But it has been determined by the UN to be an illegal weapon,

No, it has been determined by a UN Agency that it SHOULD be an illegal weapon. There's a difference.

as it violates the Geneva convention. First, they cause undue suffering (Long lasting heavy metal toxicity).

So does lead, which is every bit as toxic as uranium. And the Geneva Convention is referring to armament and ammunition designed specifically to grieviously wound, as opposed to kill: i.e. "dum-dum" bullets, bullets specifically designed to fragment and spread damage after impact in flesh (like the "Black Talon" civilian rounds), etc.

The Geneva Conventions make no reference to Depleted Uranium Armor-piercing ammunition

Second, they continue to affect the area aft er they are used (Millions of years, in fact) Third, they are toxic agents. Toxic, biological, and chemical weapons are all illegal.

And lead ISN'T Toxic ??? Toxic and Bio/chem weapons are defined as weapons whose primary effect of damage is via a chemical or biological vector, NOT as a possible side effect.

#17 Clear Channel Monopoly Draws Criticism

[Anonymous Coward]

Sources:
MEDIA FILE, September 2002
Title: "Clear Channel Stumbles"
Author: Jeff Perlstein

Faculty Evaluator: Scott Gordon Ph.D., Jorge Porras Ph.D.
Student Researcher: Melissa Jones, Chris Salvano
Corporate Media Partial Coverage: Now With Bill Moyers, April 26, 2002 and April 4, 2003; The New York Times, January 30, 2003 and February 3, 2003; The Wall Street Journal, January 31, 2003

Clear Channel Communications of San Antonio, Texas may not yet be a household name, but in the past seven years the radio station conglomerate has rocketed to a place alongside NBC and Gannett as one of the largest media companies in the United States.
Before passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, a company could not own more than 40 radio stations in the entire country. With the Act's sweeping relaxation of ownership limits, the cap on radio ownership was eliminated. As a result, Clear Channel has dominated the industry by growing from 40 radio stations nationally in the mid-90s, to approximately 1225 stations nationally by 2003. The station also dominates the audience share in 100 of 112 major markets. In addition to its radio stations, Clear Channel also owns television station affiliates, billboards, outdoor advertising, and owns or exclusively books the vast majority of concert venues, amphitheaters, and clubs in the country. According to NOW with Bill Moyers, in 2000 Clear Channel purchased the nation's largest concert and events promoter, and in 2001, the Clear Channel did 70% of national ticket sales.
In 2001, Denver concert promoter, Jesse Morreale, sued Clear Channel. Morreale's suit claims that Clear Channel's use of its billboards to advertise Clear Channel-booked shows at Clear Channel-owned music is in essence a monopoly. The suit also alleges that Clear Channel stations have threatened to withdraw certain music from rotation unless the artist's book concerts through Clear Channel and play at Clear Channel-owned music venues.
Clear Channel has also drawn criticism for using "voice tracking." Voice tracking is when one DJ produces a standardized national broadcast and formats it into their radio stations nationwide- giving the semblance of a local broadcast. By this process, Clear Channel can produce its radio format in San Antonio, Texas and play it on its 1225 radio stations without regard to local music, culture, or issues.
In January 2002, a train carrying 10,000 gallons of anhydrous ammonia derailed in the town of Minot, causing a spill and a toxic cloud. Authorities attempted to warn the residents of Minot to stay indoors and to avoid the spill. But when the authorities called six of the seven radio stations in Minot to issue the warning, no one answered the phones. As it turned out, Clear Channel owned all six of the stations and none of the station's personnel were available at the time.
Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota grilled Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Michael Powell over the consolidation of media in the U.S., using the Minot incident as a warning and an example. At a Senate Commerce Committee meeting Dorgan warned that as large media companies, like Clear Channel, buy up the last remaining independent media outlets across the country, the public suffers. According to chairman Powell, there is strong evidence that a lot of times local independent run stations cannot afford to produce quality local news. However, a recent study by Columbia University's Project for Excellence in Journalism found that TV stations owned by smaller media firms generally produce better newscasts
Such branding and consolidation is counter to the FCC's mandate of encouraging media diversity. The FCC is doing very little about the results of increased media concentration. This may be a result of the relationship that exits between the FCC commissioners and the broadcast companies and their lobbyists. According to the Center for Public Integrity (CPI), media companies and lobbyists developed a very cozy relationship. As Chuck Lewis of CPI notes, "We

Google cache

[jem]

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:oo9QDkrHwxIJ: www.projectcensored.org/Publications/2004/+site:pr ojectcensored.org+2004&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

A related site

[Paul Bain]

A related site is that of Accuracy in Media, which points out the many biases in mainstream media.

NPR programs to consider...

[zasos]

"Democracy Now" and "Sounter Spin" are some good NPR programs to consider if you want to keep track of underreported or sensored stories.
both are supperted by fiar.org
you can get a cool "Don't trust corporate medida" bumper sticker there...

Re:Their site...

[PReDiToR]

Google Cache of /.'d opening page Links work.

# 2 Homeland Security Threatens Civil Liberty

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/2 .html

# 2 Homeland Security Threatens Civil Liberty

Sources:
Global Outlook
Winter 2003
Title: "Homeland Defense: Pentagon Declares War on America"
Author: Frank Morales

Rense.com, 2-11-03 & Global Outlook, Volume 4
Title: "Secret Patriot II Destroys Remaining US Liberty"
Author: Alex Jones

Center for Public Integrity (publicintegrity.org)
Title: "Justice Department Drafts Sweeping Expansion of Terrorism Act"
Author: Charles Lewis and Adam Mayle

Faculty evaluators: Robert Manning, Rashmi Singh Ph.D., Andrew Botterell Ph.D.
Student researchers: Sherry Grant, Dylan Citrin Cummins

Corporate Media partial coverage:
Atlanta Journal-constitution, 5/11/03/, Patriot Act II, by E. Moscoso, and N.Achrati
The Tampa Tribune, 3/28/03, Patriot Act II, by Cassio Furtado
Baltimore Sun, 2/21/03, patriot Act Squel Worse than First, by Rajeev Goyle

As reported widely in the mainstream press, the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) represents the most extensive restructuring of the U.S. government since 1947 -- the year the Department of War was combined with the Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, and Air Force, to create the Department of Defense. The new Department of Homeland Security combines over one hundred separate entities of the executive branch, including the Secret Service, the Coast Guard, and the Border Patrol, among others. The DHS employs over 170,000 federal workers and commands a total annual budget of $37 billion. But what does this mean for the people of the United States? What sort of long-term implications will it have on the day to day lives of average Americans? These questions have received scant attention in the corporate media.
The concept of Homeland Security was thrown around the Pentagon long before the events of 9/11. Originally titled "Homeland Defense," it was placed within the Pentagon's "Operations Other Than War (OOTW)" command, under the stand-alone civil disturbance plan called the "Garden Plot." Over the years, homeland defense has been extended by a host of Presidential Decision Directives and Executive Orders. Now, following the events of 9/11, the initial concept has ballooned into a vast, powerful, and far-reaching department.
One DHS mandate largely ignored by the press requires the FBI, CIA, state, and local governments to share intelligence reports with the department upon command, without explanation. Civil rights activists claim that this endangers the rights and freedoms of law-abiding Americans by blurring the lines between foreign and domestic spying (as occurred during the CointelPro plan of the '60s and '70s). According to the ACLU, the Department of Homeland Security will be "100% secret and 0% accountable." Meanwhile, the gathering, retention, and use of information collected is a central focus of the Bush administration's new agenda. Officially established to track down terrorists, information can be collected on any dissenter, American citizen or not, violent or not. The classification of recent peace marches and protests as "terrorist events" within DOD and FEMA documents is one example of the dangerous potential of these mandates.
As part of Homeland Security, the PATRIOT Act of 2001 allows the government increased and unprecedented access to the lives of American citizens and represents an unrestrained imposition on our civil liberties. Wiretaps, previously confined to one phone, can now follow a person from place to place at the behest of government agents and people can now be detained on the vague suspicion that they might be a terrorist -- or assisting one. Detainees can also be denied the right to legal representation (or the right of private counsel when they are allowed to meet with their attorneys).
William Safire, a writer for the New York Times, defined the first Patriot Act as a Presidential effort to seize dictatorial control. No member of Congress was given sufficient time

It's still radioactive.....

[rpi1995]

I'm not addressing the legality, of that I have no idea.

Depleted uranium is still radioactive, just not radioactive that much. Weapons grade uranium is enriched. Depleted uranium has 40% less radioactivity than natural uranium, but it is most certainly radioactive.

But then, so are some glow in the dark watches and the mesh bags from a propane lantern.

What makes DU rounds troublesome is the burning of them, and that releases airborne radioactive particles, which many people argue about the toxicity/lethality of.

Re:depleted U

[YrWrstNtmr]

WHO FactSheet on Depleted Uranium.

Quite: (some excerpts from the FactSheet)
Exposure to uranium and depleted uranium
"A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report giving field measurements taken around selected impact sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) indicates that contamination by DU in the environment was localized to a few tens of metres around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts of local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus, the probability of significant exposure to local populations was considered to be very low."

Absorption of depleted uranium
"About 98% of uranium entering the body via ingestion is not absorbed, but is eliminated via the faeces.
Of the uranium that is absorbed into the blood, approximately 70% will be filtered by the kidney and excreted in the urine within 24 hours; this amount increases to 90% within a few days."

Potential health effects of exposure to depleted uranium
Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks).
No consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver.
No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans.

Interesting once you get past all the scarey words, isn't it?

Re:Great Book....But The Censored Book is Censored

[jhigh]

I was thinking the same thing. One of the most underreported stories going right now is about the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). You never hear about it in the mainstream media because it is a movement to amend the Constitution to say that marriage is between a man and a woman, to hedge any attempts by activist judges to legislate otherwise.

You're not hearing about it because it stands a great chance at being successful, and because it has broad support across party lines, racial lines, and class lines. The media doesn't want you to know that the majority of Americans don't support gay marriage, so they just don't report on the FMA.

Neoconservative

[mbrod]

For those wondering what a neoconservative is click here for a nice summary.

Personal opinion on it is this may be the worst school of thought to come along since fascism.

True Throughout History

[useosx]

All this kind have stuff has been going on throughout history and has been censored. The United States has played a large role in state terror, obviously starting with the Native Americans. Britain, Russia, China, everyone has done it and is doing it in the interest of maintaining power. Read Understanding Power by Noam Chomksy if you want a really in-depth look at the history and the reasons. This isn't whiney liberalism, this is a straight analysis of fact with a reasonable adherence to well-accepted moral codes, a lot of it quotes from declassified U.S. Government documents. All heavily footnoted. I highly recommend it.

If only you were right

[ianscot]

So far you've dropped the charge that it's exclusively liberal propaganda that's the story here, which is what I was answering. Moving on:

So you have a few articles from some nutball conservatives who wants America to take over the world.

Not quite there yet, but you seem to have read a little bit of it this time, so I'll give you another bite: We have a few articles from some "nutball conservatives" -- your words -- who want America to take over the world who are presently in positions within Bush's cabinet where they weild enormous influence, and who urged Bush's current Iraq policies on Clinton back in 1998.

Ever hear of Paul Wolfowitz, and Don Rumsfeld's, and Dick Cheney's, roles as founding members of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)? PNAC is what Pat Buchanan is writing about, here -- they've enunciated the 'strategic vision' Buchanan's quoting from at length, and did so back in the late 90s in various papers on the subject.

Why does this register as a story that should be covered more? Because they laid out their plan for attacking Iraq well before Sept 11th, 2001 -- placing it squarely within the context of their "creative destabilization" ideas about the middle east. They urged Clinton to go to war against Iraq and remove Saddam because he was a "hazard" to "a significant portion of the world's supply of oil". They also called for America to go to war alone, attacked the United Nations and said the US should not be "crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council". In 1998.

Here's the letter on the PNAC's Web site.

Other members of PNAC: Bush's current Pentagon adviser, Richard Perle; Richard Armitage, the number two at the State Department; John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, under-secretaries of state; Elliott Abrams, the presidential adviser for the Middle East and a member of the National Security Council; and Peter W Rodman, assistant secretary of defence for international security affairs. The letter was also signed by Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's special envoy to the Iraqi opposition; ex-director James Woolsey and Robert B Zoelick, the US trade representative.

Here is some real censored news

[Anonymous Coward]

If you buy drugs does the money go to support terrorist? Actually it goes to support the Mexican army and the Mexican Government.

The Mexican army has been crossing the Texas border in force on a daily basis since 1997. Here are a couple of links to old papers and news stories. These just touch on the fact that The Mexican Army is involved in the trafficing.

http://www.abqjournal.com/border/c1-16.pdf
www. customscorruption.com/mexican_cartels_integr.h tm

If you search long enough at your favorite SE for the keywords durango, cocaine and cartel. You will eventually find an incredible paper presented at a Custom's seminar several years ago.

The Mexican Army and Mexico state governments don't just protect drug producers and smuggler - they are the drug producers and smugglers.

Why would this story be suppressed? Could I even begin to list the reasons? The war on drugs is such a total and complete failure that a friendly neighboring nation now uses it as a primary source of funding for their military. Why wouldn't the Republican want this to be common knowledge? Why wouldn't the Democrats want this to be common knowledge? Why don't the people in favor of legalization use this as ammunition in their cause? I can't understand why they would not want it widely know that they are the primary financiers of a bastion of civil rights like the Mexican Army.

What about a potential backlash against Mexican-Americans? Clearly the Mexican government doesn't want this information becoming public in a big way.

Re:left-wing

[JonathanF]

I agree that they're opinion and should be viewed carefully, but it's a bit fallacious to say "stop complaining, you have it better than someone in country X."

At least in those countries, censorship is patently obvious. In the US (and Canada, to a lesser degree) censorship is simply hidden under the guise of private reporting by corporations and the myth that they're just practicing free speech. Most people assume that CNN, Fox, etc. are accurate because they aren't directly linked to the government and give the appearance of objectivity in their style.

The fact is that these companies are run by people with their own agendas. Whether they're connected to the government or not, they routinely engage in selective omission of stories and images that don't favour their point of view. It wasn't hard to notice this just by watching TV in the run-up to the war in Iraq: most American stations weren't really questioning the validity of the US government's WMD claims, and Fox in particular was in a "rah, rah, go USA" mode.

If you think you live in a country of freedom, watch the CBC in Canada or even the BBC (whether it's BBC World or otherwise). You'll be surprised at just how slanted the US media really is.

Re:Liberal?

[gobbo]

Second, let's see some evidence, the Bushes aren't even German.

Gosh, let's see: try this, or you can just check out the Straight Dope, he's a pretty good skeptic. The grandparent post is confusing Prescott with the rest of his family, although they all benefited from dealing with the Nazis.

At least one of those links will take you to pdf scans of some original corporate records, which should be enough proof. BTW, the point that they aren't German is exactly the point to be concerned with! What does "Trading with the Enemy" mean to you? And while you're at it, investigate some of the Bush family dealings with the bin Ladens, very entertaining.

make sure to read some ultra-conservative propaganda as well. Otherwise you're simply a hypocrite. -- some of this story's discussion would qualify! Lots of liberal-baiting, with nary a substantive rebuttal in sight, lots of kneeJerks.

When you have an extremist position and no one cares what you have to say, don't complain when no one listens. That's not censorship, that's just supply/demand in the marketplace of ideas.

Wow, do you actually believe that it's extremist to be concerned that people don't know that their non-elected government has planned global domination by force for decades, and that their current actions are falsely justified? That concern is extremist? Wow.

Re:What is wrong with being left wing?

[phoneyman]

There's nothing wrong with being left wing, but most of the crap on this "censored" list lacks even the remotest pretension to any kind of journalistic standard. It literally reads like an agenda for the "violent-protest-of-the-week" crowd. Bush, Rumsfeld, and Co. are extremely interested in having Iraqi's run their own nation. If only for the reason that it would be the most profitable thing, both economically and politically, for them to do. They are well aware that installing yet-another-despot is a mistake; a mistake they made with Saddam, a mistake they are still suffering for with the Al-Saud clan, and a mistake they don't have much interest in making once more. Yes, it's American self-interest, but it also just-so-happens to be Iraqi self interest as well, according to some reports they even have pr0n now - and that, my friend, is freedom in action. As for WMD, I'm willing to bet it's there - somewhere. Nations are still digging up WMD that was buried in WWI and WWII. Hell, the US itself is still trying to find some WMD they buried themselves, in their own backyard. Germany is checking allegations that there are still hidden bunkers with live Nazi ordnance buried under the Munich airport. It's fine to be left wing, but you can't buy in to every bullshit story some nutbar at IndyMedia dreams up. Pierre