Slashdot Mirror
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!"
Unfortunately the vast majority of people out there get their news from the talking-heads on television. These kinds of stories will never be seen on mainstream media (ala CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, et al) as long as they are owned by monolithic corporations with their sole interest being profit.
The brain-dead sheep of the world watch their TV and are fed what the advertisers want:
"Don't question the war in Iraq, buy a Swiffer WetJet!"
Trolling is a art,
Any list of "underreported" stories that includes stories published in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, only the papers with among the largest publications in the US, is flawed.
They should call it... things the left is pissed people haven't gotten more excited about or something...
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Applying the term "Censored" to a story that got less attention than you think it deserved is like applying the term "Nazi" to the cop who just gave you a speeding ticket. It's inaccurate, stupid, and it trivializes the outrages that really deserve those descriptions.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
First off, when does "under reporting" = censorship?
... and so on. All legitimate stories that have also been underreported, yet I don't see that site screaming censorship.
Secondly, interesting the political bent of all of these stories. What about
* Where did all the UN Food for Oil money disppear to?
* How much business did France and Germany do with Iraq in violation of UN resolutions?
* How the "sactions are killing millions of Iraqi babies" stories were bogus.
* How much of the Arab and some European press were getting paid by Saddam.
I didn't realize that being liberal was equivalent with being interested in the what actually happens in the world, instead of what gets filtered through the short attention span, J-Lo and Ben sieve.
Would you care to respond with substantive argument instead of name calling?
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
I don't trust anyone that starts their comment "I'm also not trolling..." but I'll bite anyway...
The US government has an effectively miniscule power to censor. An "expose" on censorship in the US is really an indictment of the media - a media which is generally considered to have a slant to the left.
One example we find is that the US media is currently running story after story on how badly things are going in Iraq. This is on contrast with the observation that 1) Almost all the attacks are confined to the Saddam loyalist area arround Tikrit and Baghdad, the rest of the country is fairly peaceful and 2) even moderate-to-left congressmen than have visited Iraq say things are going reasonably well.
Please note that this is not to say that I think things are perfect by any stretch. The media tends to run stories for the purpose of ratings/circulation. Left/Right does not come into it very much at all.
Not sure why this story -- Saving Private Lynch covered by the UK was in there. A bunch of us spent long hours searching through major newspaper and network achives to see how people in the US would react to it.
It's not. This is coming from people way out on left field. The UN had a treaty that banned depleted uranium weapons. Some countries signed on to it, many who are protected by our depleted uranium weapons and the like. Now, the people behind this, who don't understand the difference between censorship and people not buying what you're selling, don't believe in sovereignity. If the UN wants to ban depleted weapons, then ipso facto they are illegal, overriding every country's legislature. This isn't how it works, but they would like it to work that way; and these people have the gall to whine about global domination conspiracy theories. Guess it has to be their domination.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Depleted uranium is not radioactive, but it is toxic. If you think it's a great idea to spray the environment with these bullets, then by all means, please allow me to dump a box of spent ammo into your water supply.
A poll last weekend showed that most Americans believe 9-11 is linked with Iraq war and Saddam sponsored the terrorism. With such blatant ignorance of international events, censorship is unnecessary. Americans got the president and government they deserved.
First, as to the accusation that the site is somehow un-American (a coinage that seems to have discovered a new lease on life since 9/11) since many of the stories somehow involve US involvement in affairs that do not put us in a very glowing light I'd respond that given the United States' pre-eminence economically, politically and culturally you would be hard pressed to find a situation that through our active or passive involvement, we are not implicated in. For proof of how our passiveness affects other countries, read your history of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Hussein communicated to the US ambassador an interest in seizing Kuwait. When the US offered no opposition or even statement of opposition, Hussein invaded. One wonders if Gulf War I could have been avoided had a clear message been sent to Iraq prior to the invasion of Kuwait. On the other side of that responsibility is our active involvement in international affairs. On that note, take a brief consideration of our historical actions in Iran and ask if the hostility towards the US there isn't at least in a nationalistic sense, well grounded.
As to the sentiment of un-American, this one statement can be reduced to nothing more than vitriol. I have personally been accused of being un-American and unpatriotic for at various times voicing my opposition to the policies of the current administration. Some reasonable people, who failed to call me unpatriotic before we attacked Iraq, called me that afterwards since I wasn't "supporting the troops." The very indictment is flawed and irrational. In the very essence of voicing my opposition to the opinion of the sitting President, I am acting responsibly AND patriotically. Responsibly, in that one should not grant assent to a leader just because he's in power and patriotically, in that I am upholding the very rights, which this country so magnanimously grants us. As any developer knows-critical thought is eminently fundamental to the development of any system. Political dialogue is critical thought on a peer to peer basis.
Finally, was the site's use of 'censored' the best choice? No, probably not. Under reported and under-represented by the major media outlets? Absolutely. Even liberal leaning old me had failed to hear about several of the items on their list. What should be kept in perspective is the fact that the site seeks to highlight the information that people may not have heard too much about from their traditional sources. Does Project Censored have a clear agenda? It would definitely appear so, but then ask yourself if Fox News doesn't as well. Or ABC, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, ad inifinitum. When news became business, such a thing as objective journalism went away. Why else does just about everyone in the country know the name of Laci Peterson? Can you think of one prevailing reason why her victimization trumps the victimization of millions of other people around the world? As the Fox affiliate in Miami phrased it, "If it bleeds, it leads."
And at this point I am probably off-topic. I just felt that some contrary opinion was needed to balance the bulk of what I'd read. Immediate dismissals are just as culpable as the blind acceptance of what one's been told. If you disagree with a 'fact,' establish the reasons why without resorting to off the cuff retorts or invective filled denials. Rationally approach the problem and if you find it important enough to speak about, speak with at least a modicum of informed opinion. Or don't, and fill the ether with the tiny murmurs of blind assent and self-righteous denial.
Read that statement closely, then re-read my statement. This statement is talking about external exposure to DU. I repeat again that alpha and beta particles are stopped sufficiently by the layer of dead skin that covers our body. No damage will be done by this.
Now, pulverize the same DU into particles that can be airborne. Now ingest those same particles and repeat the study. I believe you will find different results. This is because ingested radioactive material producing alpha and beta radiation will not be absorbed by dead skin, but instead by live cells. The results in this case are quite different.
--Be human.
In Al Franken's new book, he makes an interesting response to this "Liberals hate America!" type of claim.
He says that the far right loves America the way a 4-year-old loves his/her Mommy - anyone who says anything bad about Mommy must be BAD!
On the other hand, there is the way the mother loves her 4-year-old son/daugher - realizing that nurturing and behavior modification are needed, loving the kid in spite of flaws and helping to correct them.
Perhaps the latter view doesn't apply to all of these items, but it is another point of view to apply toward criticism of America.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The site is well and truly /.ed now, so I unfortunately can't get to it to see what they have to say. I did notice, however, that the title was top UNDERREPORTED stories--not censored, underreported.
As for Bush being evil and wanting to take over the world, his entire entourage (except for Colin Powell) are members of the Project for a New American Century. Have you read their goals? Primary plans are: Extending US influence in the Middle East by instigating regime change in several countries, starting with Iraq; and Undermining and reducing the effectiveness of the UN. All of this is because they feel they have a moral obligation to lead the world into a future that serves the interests of the US.
This is not a crazed leftist conspiracy either. It is the publically stated goal of the organisation that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. founded several years before Bush got into power.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
isn't how it works, but they would like it to work that way; and these people have the gall to whine about global domination conspiracy theories. Guess it has to be their domination.
You are really comparing a decision made by a group of delegates of all countries to a decision made by one guy? Go look up "democracy" in a dictionary.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
How to present a political agenda whilst masquerading as a news piece.
Roger Ailes has already done that in a much larger more effective way than Project Censored could ever dream of doing.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Uh, I read The Washington Post and don't have much trouble finding out about it. They've also had a bunch of editorials etc.
The Post also did a nice big fast A1 lead story on its own poll finding that the majority of Americans don't support gay unions.
This despite that the Post as an employer is gay friendly, is in a gay-friendly city and is gay friendly editorial-wise.
Heheh I read your blog for a second too. Calling America's liberal's "socialists" just shows you have no idea what you're talking about. This country, including most "liberals" balk at even the most minor shifts towards "social democratic" type of institutions, which are a far cry from socialism.
Anyway, you outweigh the liklihood and support of the FMA.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
Note that I am not stating that US troops did engage in such behavior, only that there are journalists who claim they have evidence in support of such allegations. That such a story was buried instead of followed up vigorously by the media speaks volumes of their priorities in war reporting. Whatever your political persuasion, you must admit you would want to know if your country was violating a long standing treaty like the Geneva Convention during times of war. Wouldn't you?
--Maynard
If you read the list of underreported stories during Clinton's administration, you'll see that Project Censored is not biased.
And for those of you who haven't taken the time to study government or history, "liberal" is not a bunch of welfare-requesting hippies any more than "conservative" is not equal to corporate corruption (Enron, et. al.)
Look past the biased bullshit dished out by both the left and the right and learn to think for yourselves.
"How do you know?" and "Where did you get your info?" are among your best friends.
ps
I happen to think the media was extremely biased against Newt Gingrich in years past but now the exact opposite is happening: the media is overrun with neo-conservatives who try to spin any criticism of our government (one of the most cherished American freedoms) into "liberal bias" or "treason". Since when is opposition to corporate corruption or support for campaign finance reform or simply stating FACTS considered "liberal" or "treason"?
Well, as others have said, it's not about censorship, but about underreported stories. And when you see how the US press does it's "reporting" these days, it's no wonder why they are underreported. But don't take my word for it, Greg Palast is an american reporter (living in the UK), and he wrote the following in a recent book:
"I freely offered up to CBS this information: The office of the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, brother of the republican presidential candidate, had illegally ordered the removal of the names of felons from voter rolls - real felons who had served time but obtained clemency, with the legal right to vote under Florida law. [...] The next day I received a call from the producer, who said, "I'm sorry, but your story didn't hold up." And how do you think the multibillion-dollar CBS network determined this? Answer: "We called Jeb Bush's office." Oh."
What it boils down to is that reporters generally don't bother to actually investigate and report anything anymore, they mostly just cut and paste from official press releases (there are exceptions, thank god, such as BBC news).
Anyways, what bothers me is that it is true - the neoconservatives want world domination. And they're not even trying to hide it. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and many other friends of Bush are part of a neo-conservative think-tank called the Project for a New American Century. To quote from the PNACs official website: "The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."
There is an excellent, well-researched article on GNN by a former british member of parliament, Michael Meacher, on how Afghanistan and Iraq both are part of an PNAC plan on establishing a US presence in the middle-east to secure future oil-supplies. This plan was first described in a document, called Rebuilding America's Defences, which was published by PNAC in september 2000.
I want you to just please read the article (it won't take more than 10 minutes of your time), and then tell me something's not going on here...
While I fully agree with you that this censorship stuff is just some wackos with an agenda whining that nobody cares for their conspiracy theories; I can't help adressing the issues you raise:
* Where did all the UN Food for Oil money disppear to?
Food for oil, I don't see much money in that deal. No money can't disappear.
* How much business did France and Germany do with Iraq in violation of UN resolutions?
None that I know of. Of course I have seen a lot of this crap on public forums or frog-bashing sites. But no report of those on any remotely reliable source, not even on Fox News (only exception is an op'ed column by William Safire in the NYT, which allegations have been denied by the US administration itself). Given the unusually aggressive stance the Bush administration has taken against those countries, I guess that any credible lead on that subject would have been leaked to the press in no time.
* How the "sactions are killing millions of Iraqi babies" stories were bogus.
Economic sanctions are a useful tool to destabilize a regime or prevent it from endangering its neighbours but you have to admit that the population ends up paying the highest price to them. It might eventually be worth the price (South African Apartheid regime) or not (Cuba comes to mind). In the case of Irak, I guess that the food for oil program somehow prevented the most severe famines but I don't know of hard facts. Do you have them?
* How much of the Arab and some European press were getting paid by Saddam
Come on! You're not saying that any media that voiced opinions differing from the official White House point of view were sold to Saddam, are you? And which countries do you target in "some European press". Given your post's general tone, I guess you include France and Germany. But what about Spain, England or Poland. Even though these countries participated in the "Coalition of the Willing", their press (and public opinion) were mostly opposed to the war. Do you think the Blair administration would not have noticed or would have allowed it if the BBC was paid by Saddam? Do you know that the BBC is state-owned?
This whole hate story between the US and some other countries is childish and now sickening, with so many people dying. IMHO, all of this is the consequence of over-reaction from the US coupled with underestimation of the 9/11 trauma by most foreign countries. Add a layer of really poor diplomacy from both sides and you get the current diplomatic mess.
These conspiration theories and aggressiveness from both sides are really NOT constructive. Americans must understand that the reason why some countries opposed the war is that they genuinely thought that it was a Bad Idea (TM) that would not cure terrorism and may generate new problems. This has nothing to do with hatred of America of some more sinister goals. On the other hand, I think that the US (even the neocons) genuinely thought that Saddam's demise would help fight terrorism and bring more countries toward democracy. Considerations such as world hegemony or oil are absurd or secondary. President Bush's style and personnality is also secondary in comparison to the primary goal of bringing stability to Iraq. IMHO, he's not a very good president but I'm not saying that because of a European or leftish stance : I personally think that John McCain would have done a better job than both Bush and Gore.
Sorry for that long post, I guess I had to write it down somehow. And a disclaimer : If you hadn't guessed it yet, I'm French.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
Have you considered the idea that perhaps most Americans like the idea of making the world more like us?
/want/ to make the rest of the world more like the US?
And the 19 hijackers that flew planes into the WTC and Pentagon two years ago liked the idea of making the world more like them. If you believe that the totality of your culture is superior to each and every other culture on the face of the Earth, then you will obviously want to make the rest of the world more like you. This does not mean, however, that the rest of the world is obligated to become more like you.
It's an interesting choice of words, by the way; "making" the rest of the world like us, as opposed to "helping" the rest of the world become more like us. The former implies force and compulsion, whereas the latter implies aid and assistance.
Also, can you understand why the "Project" guys might
I certainly would want to make sure that other peoples and nations who sincerely want help to reform their societies and governments gets whatever assistance they need, but I cannot support the (thoroughly bizarre) notion of "imposing freedom." America should lead by example, not by force. America should be respected and looked up to, not hated and feared. Nations and groups who actively decide to make an enemy of America should fear our capabilities, but the recent oderint dum metuant policy of this administration has gone far beyond that.
The PNAC's agenda is pretty transparent: a "New American Century", regardless of whether the recipients of said Century actually want it or not. And that's horribly, horribly wrong. If the underdeveloped world is to become more like America, it should be because it wants to become more like America, not because it's been forced to. If we have to resort to military force to spread our way of life, then we've taken a very long stroll down a very wrong road.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
The best strategies are to debunk, ridicule and associate valid stories/opinions with undesirable words/people like "communists", "lefties", "conspiracy theorists", etc.
For example, when interviewing "people off the street" make sure you have only the wackos presenting opposing views while you pick out "decent-looking, well-dressed" people to present your own views. And if there aren't enough people who share your views, hire some people off the street or go with local actors/models if your budget allows. Even if both views get equal airtime, the opposing views will be associated with ugly weirdos and who the hell wants to share the same views as them even if they're right?
A similar strategy is to hire strong-looking & charismatic tv/news personalities that support your own views while hiring ugly-assed & uncharasmatic "wimps" to offer very pitiful opposition. I'm sure you can find a decent example of this tactic by watching TV.
As you can see, your previously unpopular views can be easily associated with "winners" and opposing views are associated with "whiners, losers, traitors, communists, etc." without resorting to outright censorship.
The best part of this strategy is that it works because the average joe-sixpacks don't understand how to detect bullshit.
To sum it up: associate undesirable words/concepts/people to opposition and associate desirable words/concepts/people to your own views and don't let the pesky facts or Truth get in the way because perception is usually more important in manipulating the public.
This of course goes hand-in-hand with manipulating opinion polls and surveys by carefully crafting questions in ways that lead people to pick desired answers and then hiding the exact original wording of these questions when presenting the results to the public.
Who needs censorship when these tactics work so well?
Wow, Al Franken posts on these boards?
LOL you're a riot.
"there isn't a major media organization in this country that has the slightest hint of a liberal leaning in at least 20 years." /. reached that far. (I mean, to make a statement like this, you CAN'T be from this planet.)
Holy Mother of God, I didn't realize
To say things like "the whole gay marriage issue doesn't exist on the political spectrum" - maybe you need a little more oxygen?
We certainly are from this planet, and it is right. Consider the following:
1) Name one major media outlet that opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
2) Name one major media outlet that did not immediately start begging to have our civil rights taken away please God so we can be protected on 9/11/01
It was never clearer than it was then. The major media outlets are against civil rights, promote war, and promote blind faith in the government on a regular basis. All "conservative" viewpoints.
Gay marriage does not have anything to do with the government. Amendment 1 of the constitution says congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. IMHO that translates to no laws made on purely moral bases, no laws simply made because some religion wants them, no laws establishing what constitutes a sanctioned religion. People who support anti-gay legislation are against the constitution of the United States, because they want to force their religion on everyone by law and also to deprive citizens of their rights (read Amendment 14 and see what it has to say on that score).
This is, of course, why the amendment was proposed. The complete disregard fo rthe constitution and rule of law is also why after the supreme court said laws against homosexuality were unconstitutional, state prosecutors said they were going to try and prosecute people anyway and pass more anti-gay laws. And don't get me started about Ashcroft, the damned criminal traitor.