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!"
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.
Are those stories still censored? Oh, no, never mind, that's just the /. effect.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
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
#6 on the report is very real. While I still have a choice, I chose DSL - sepcifically so I could host my own servers - over cable. But I paid more, not just in the service, but also due to the fact that phone line charges are separate.
I suspect, however, that the average American household will go with cable because it is cheaper, there are no line charges per say, and it rolls up nicely in one bill from the cable company along with their cable service. And as #6 says, there are fewer and fewer cable companies that control this access, which should worry most.
I chose Speakeasy.net as my DSL provider because they've had a pretty good presence on the west and east coast and they've always maintained that they're a large 'local isp'. For me, I won't have to worry about having access to a site blocked, such as the recent AOL/MSN fiasco.
But for the average American, these things cannot be promised. There have been more than a few reports of cable companies monitoring and logging traffic of their users and honestly, as time rolls on, I see this becoming more and more of an issue for mega-corps like TimeWarner - they'll be encouraged to tap into this 'gold mine'. Most users probably won't care either.
Since I don't think the policies of these companies will change much in regards to this, the only alternative for those that care about such things - besides lobbying and the like - will be to vote with their pocketbooks. This will not only affect (albiet, realistically, probably little) the mega-corps bottom line, but will help to ensure that those 'other' companies will still be able to provide quality and non-censored access to their paying subscribers.
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!
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
Is it simply that the site is US-centric, or are either of the following true:
(a) US is censoring more important stories than other countries
(b) US is involved in more issues than other countries
?
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
While I would concede that we are into global hegemony and are little to quick to use force to solve our problems, this list a bit ridiculous. Take the following quote:
Excuse me, the US has zero to do with any of the civil wars in Africa. Zero. There are problems that can't be blamed on the US and the war in the Congo is one of them.The author of this article says:
Come on. That is outrageous. Africans are not babies, and we are not their irresponsible parents. I find talk like that extremely insulting to Africans as it suggests they are not as "advanced" as Western civilizations and cannot control themselves when presented with military technology.
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.
While the NYT and WSJ may have lare circulations relative to other papers, they don't have large circulations.
The fact that the NYT and WSJ picked up the stories imply that they (likely) passed the watchful eyes of editors... they're likely legit.
And yet they weren't picked up on by papers, or =gasp!= television stations across the nation. That makes them candidates for big stories that were underreported in my book. YMMV.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
A related site is that of Accuracy in Media, which points out the many biases in mainstream media.
A lawyer & digital forensics examiner. Also an expert on open source software (OSS).
Google Cache of /.'d opening page Links work.
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
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.
Bush: Gee, Dick, what do you want to do tonight?
Cheney: The same thing we do every night, Dubbya.
Try to take over the world!
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.
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.
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.
Check out: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmeric asDefenses.pdf
This has been quite disturbing to everyone I've talked to about it... My wife flat out refuses to talk to be about it because it makes so much sense and is so upsetting... This has gotten a lot of press lately. Check out:
911 and the Bush Administration
The Guardian
Those with Weblogs should contribute to the weblog project mentioned on Metafilter about this:
WHO were you?
Unfortunately, it just makes more sense that we provoked these arabic countries to either let us build a pipeline to feed China with Oil, or we would do it by force. "A carpet of Gold, or a carpet of Bombs..."
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.
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.
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.
Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
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
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
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.
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
What you don't realize is that in the current climate (the media being owned by the same people who make the weapons used in war e.g. GE/Westinghouse etc.) the news is right of center. In this case right does not refer to "conservative" and "liberal" but to "Laissez-faire Capitalism" and "new deal."
Also remember that this "liberal media" never grilled the current Bush on his war record, (being put on the "Champagne Flight" the name for the Texas Air National Guard, or that he went AWOL from it when he ran for congress (and lost) in Texas.
Conspiracies are conspiracies and damning the press (or anyone else for that matter) for believing that something wrong was right is silly. e.g. AIDS conspiracies.
Do I damn Bush, Cheny, et al. for lying about Uranium, WMD's, Terrorism is Iraq? Well yes I do but they lie a great deal more than the media.
Did you know that the Bush family was charged under the "Trading with the Enemy Act" and had all of their possessions taken away from them? Why? BECAUSE THEY SOLD WAR BONDS FOR THE NAZIS AFTER WWII. Is that a vast right wing conspiracy? No it's pure greed. I think that it skips a generation in the Walker Bush clan.
Also you use the word CENSORED like it was a guy in a dark suit that ran into the office whacked the author on the head and ran out with THE ONLY FLOPPY! Give me a break. Censorship happens at a level of editor's body language. It happens at authors wondering subconsciously if they should really run a story about PCB's and GE when they work at a NBC affiliate.
And for the record there is something wrong with being liberal. Are you fiscally liberal? Socially Liberal? Give me a break. Paranoid people find the holes, paranoid liberals are the Linux hackers of our social fabric. You make it seem like we should trust vertical social monopolies to find the truth. Do you trust Microsoft to find the truth in your OS? Then why would you insinuate that you can trust NBC/GE or Disney (you know the people who want to restore the power of oligarchy through unlimited copy right extension.
Use you critical skills on the media for 6 months then ask the same questions again.
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?