Top 25 Censored Media Stories of 2003-2004

An anonymous reader writes "Project Censored has come out with its list of the most censored media stores of 2003-2004. Some of the gems are "Bush Administration Censors Science", "U.S. Develops Lethal New Viruses", "Media and Government Ignore Dwindling Oil Supplies" and "Reinstating the Draft"."

Comments

Here's the list

[wolenczak]

#1: Wealth Inequality in 21st Century Threatens Economy and Democracy
#2: Ashcroft vs. the Human Rights Law that Hold Corporations Accountable
#3: Bush Administration Censors Science
#4: High Levels of Uranium Found in Troops and Civilians
#5: The Wholesale Giveaway of Our Natural Resources
#6: The Sale of Electoral Politics
#7: Conservative Organization Drives Judicial Appointments
#8: Cheney's Energy Task Force and The Energy Policy
#9: Widow Brings RICO Case Against U.S. government for 9/11
#10: New Nuke Plants: Taxpayers Support, Industry Profits
#11: The Media Can Legally Lie
#12: The Destabilization of Haiti
#13: Schwarzenegger Met with Enron's Ken Lay Years Before the California Recall
#14: New Bill Threatens Intellectual Freedom in Area Studies
#15: U.S. Develops Lethal New Viruses
#16: Law Enforcement Agencies Spy on Innocent Citizens
#17: U.S. Government Represses Labor Unions in Iraq in Quest for Business Privatization
#18: Media and Government Ignore Dwindling Oil Supplies
#19: Global Food Cartel Fast Becoming hte World's Supermarket
#20: Extreme Weather Prompts New Warning from UN
#21: Forcing a World Market for GMOs
#22: Censoring Iraq
#23: Brazil Holds Back in FTAA Talks, But Provides Little Comfort for the Poor of South America
#24: Reinstating the Draft
#25: Wal-Mart Brings Inequality and Low Prices to the World

Re:Interesting...

[jlgolson]

There are three parts of the US Government

Executive Branch
President and a whole bunch of other depts under him

Legislative Branch
Congress or Senate and House or Reps

Judicial Branch
Supreme Court and othe Federal Courts

All are "evenly matched" through "checks and balances".

If the Senate and House are evenly split, the power splits pretty evenly. When we're talking about passing laws and such, you need 51% to get anything done. In the Senate it's even worse, because you need a much higher percentage to defeat a filibuster (such as the Democrats have done recently to Bush Judicial nominees).

For more info about the left-leaning US Media read Bias by Bernard Goldberg.

Re:Interesting...

[jlgolson]

Pew Research: http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/

First, you are wrong: http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/journalist_surv ey_prc4.asp

For the National Press:
34% liberal, 54% moderate, 7% conservative
Average American:
20% liberal, 41% moderate, 33% conservative

Spin from both sides:

NPR Spin about said report: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=39754

More spin: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=39754

More spin: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=39754

Re:Depleted Uranium Is *Not* A Health Risk

[js7a]

I see you have chosen to put your inaccurate statements in boldface type. Does that make you a boldfaced liar?

We are talking about renal failure, not cancer.

Uranium dust inhalation is not deadly because uranium is radioactive, it is deadly because it is a heavy metal.

Re:Strangely Appropriate...

[Pantero Blanco]

Two bills proposing a draft _were_ in Congress for a while. They didn't pass, of course; they were just posturing.

Re:-1 Flamebait

[BeBoxer]

Seems that Fox editors wanted some reporters to include some statements from the "Monsanto Corporation" in a story that was negative towards them. The reporters refused and were fired. The statements may or may not have been false, but isn't that for the people watching the story to decide? Isn't not including them censorship?

Did you read the article? Let me refresh your memory:

she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) "a false, distorted or slanted story" about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows.

Catch that part about "in the jury's words"? Note the use of quotation marks? Do you still think the statements "may or may not have been false"? Still not convinced? Here's another refresher from the story:

Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre?s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.

Biggest Story: US protecting Victor Bout

[Anonymous Coward]

This story is so far under the radar, it's invisible. London's Financial Times ran a front-page story about the United States having a secret relationship with one of the world's most notrious arms smugglers - do a Google search on this guy and you'll see he's into *everything* and called the "Merchant of Death" - well, the US has been protecting him and his interests:

Source:
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename= FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&cid=1083180541131&p=10142 32938216

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/08/03/italy .t error/index.html

http://www.nisat.org/blackmarket/europe/Central_ Eu rope/belgium/2002.02.27-Russian%20Daily%20on%20All eged%20Arms%20Dealer%20Victor%20Bout.html

Background on Victor Bout - trafficker now being protected by the US:
http://www.ruudleeuw.com/vbout2.htm
http://w ww.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/23/smn.02.html
http://www.namebase.org/xbor/Victor-Bout.html

US seeks to protect weapons trafficker

By Mark Turner at the United Nations, and Mark Huband and Andrew Parker in London
Published: May 16 2004 21:56 | Last Updated: May 16 2004 21:56

The US is pressing for a notorious arms trafficker allegedly involved in supplying coalition forces in Iraq to be omitted from planned United Nations sanctions, in defiance of French demands.

Washington has UK support in resisting French efforts to freeze the assets of Victor Bout, once described by a UK minister as a "merchant of death" for his role as a leading arms supplier to rebel and government forces in several African conflicts, including Liberia.

The UN is considering who should be on a list of individuals whose assets will be frozen because of their involvement with the ousted regime of Charles Taylor, the Liberian leader overthrown last year.

Western diplomats say they have been told of reports that an air freight company associated with Mr Bout, who is subject to a UN travel ban because of his activities in Liberia, may be involved in supplying US forces in Iraq and that the US may be "recycling" his extensive cargo network.

In 2000, Peter Hain, then British foreign office minister responsible for Africa, described Mr Bout as "the chief sanctions-buster and . . . a merchant of death who owns air companies that ferry in arms" for rebels in Angola and Sierra Leone.

A former UN official familiar with the sanctions process said he had also heard of Mr Bout's Iraq connection. The ex-official said he had been told by a reliable source about a month ago that "the American defence forces are using Victor's planes for their logistics".

A senior western diplomat close to the UN negotiations said: "We are disgusted that Bout won't be on the list, even though he is the principal arms dealer in the region. If we want peace in that region [of West Africa], it seems evident that he should be on that list."

Another senior diplomat close to the UN discussions said on Sunday that the UK had originally included Mr Bout's name on its preliminary list of individuals to be targeted. The diplomat said US officials then told their British counterparts they did not want Mr Bout included because he was "being used in Iraq".

Mr Bout's name then did not appear on a subsequent UK list.

The US claims Mr Bout's activities should be dealt with in separate UN measures addressing the role of arms dealers. However, a former UN investigator on Sunday doubted that Mr Bout was playing a significant role in Iraq.

US and British officials at the UN deny any knowledge of Mr Bout's alleged activities in Iraq. A UK official said: "We have supported in the past and continue to support international efforts to end Mr Bout's illegal activities," noting that he was subject to a travel ban and an international arrest warrant.

A UN Security Council resolution in March said the assets of Mr Taylor, his immedia

Bernard Golberg's Bias is itself biased

[wrinkledshirt]

Bernard Golberg is an oft-cited source that the US media is left-leaning. What isn't so commonly cited are the various rebuttals to it (I wonder why, in a left-leaning environment, that is?). Take a look at fair.org from time to time, or read this article by Geoffrey Nunberg. What's more, take a look at zmag and ask yourself, if the media is so liberal, why is it that so few of the stories on zmag ever get much air time?

Perhaps Goldberg's most striking claim is that conservatives are more often labelled "conservatives" than are liberals, which he says has a marginalizing effect on conservative viewpoints, making them seem outside the norm. Nunberg did his own test, and found that the opposite was actually true.

...at one point [Goldberg] strays into territory that can actually be put to a test. That's when he claims that the media "pointedly identify conservative politicians as conservatives," but rarely use the word "liberal" to describe liberals.

In fact, I did find a big disparity in the way the press labels liberals and conservatives, but not in the direction that Goldberg claims. On the contrary: the average liberal legislator has a thirty percent greater likelyhood of being identified with a partisan label than the average conservative does. The press describes Barney Frank as a liberal two-and-a-half times as frequently as it describes Dick Armey as a conservative. It gives Barbara Boxer a partisan label almost twice as often as it gives one to Trent Lott. And while it isn't surprising that the press applies the label conservative to Jesse Helms more often than to any other Republican in the group, it describes Paul Wellstone as a liberal twenty percent more frequently than that.

There's more in Nunberg's article, if you care to read it.

Re:Interesting article on the draft issue

[praksys]

Sure. Here is a CNN article on the shortfalls in the 1990s. Here are some articles on recruiting for 2002, 2003 and 2004.

The concerns about recruiting and reenlistment have all been based on opinion polls that predicted that shortfalls would arise. So far there is no sign of those shortfalls actually arising. I guess the polls are not reliable predictors of what people will actually do.

As for the stop-loss orders, this is reasonably informative. The orders only apply to units that are deployed, so they make no difference to the task of meeting yearly recruitment and reenlistment goals.

Re:How are these "censored"?

[Dashing Leech]

Censorship, I believe by definition, is something that has to be done by a government or a large organization

Nope. Those are just the ones people are most pissed about. From Merriam-Webster:

censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

Censoring is not inherently bad. For instance, when parents don't let their children watch certain shows or movies they are censoring. What annoys people most is when adults are censored from things that they have a right to hear or see, which generally can only be done by government or large corporations. Making something unavailable or unobtainable is effectively equivalent to the removal of the right to obtain it. The flip-side to censorship is a boycott where people refuse to obtain something that is available because of some offense to the product or company.

If nobody buys your crappy book about aliens killing Kennedy, it's not being censored, just unappreciated.

That's different than what happened to the Dixie Chicks. Radio stations stopped playing their material because of their beliefs, not because they didn't like the music.

uranium short-term LD50 is as low as 0.2 mg/m3

[js7a]

Your link is an opinion column, not a peer-reviewed medical publication. It is obviously based on only a few minutes of research, as are your opinions.

The following excerpts are from "Medical Effects of Internal Contamination with Uranium," in the March 1999 (Volume 40, Number 1) Croation Medical Journal, by Asaf Durakoviæ, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington D.C., USA:

Uranium heavy metal toxicity has been extensively studied for two centuries. The main parameter in the assessment of its toxic effect were mortality studies and LD50 at different quantities in a single dose or as a function of time. Other parameters extensively studied include survival time, the effects on the life span, growth and development, excretion of uranium in the urine, deposition in tissues and organs and general and local health effects. During the Manhattan Project, acute toxicity studies were conducted at different National Centers in the United States, with the most intensive investigation done at the University of Rochester with a rat model, mainly with uranyl nitrate, uranyl fluoride, and uranyl tetrachloride given parenterally. Further preparation of UF6 by oxidation or fluoridation provides the basis of combination between UF6 and the metal fluorides. Uranyl fluoride was found to be more toxic than uranyl nitrate or uranium tetrachloride, with a lethal dose of uranyl nitrate being 2 mg/kg by subcutaneous or 0.4 mg/kg by intravenous injection. Oral toxicity of insoluble UO2, U3O8, and UF4 was found to be non-toxic in rats, while six other soluble components were of a considerable toxicity. Uranyl nitrate had a more dramatic effect on the mature than on the newborn rats. The main chemical toxicity was observed in the proximal convoluted tubule of the kidney. Experiments on dogs with oral administration of 0.2 mg/kg of soluble UO2F2 to 10 mg/g of insoluble UO2, as well as uranyl nitrate at 0.2 g/kg and 0.05 g/kg of uranium tetrachloride, demonstrated renal cortical tubular changes with very little evidence of necrosis.

Renal pathology was a common finding with several chemical compounds of uranium tested parenterally.

Percutaneous application of uranium was studied with soluble compounds including uranyl nitrate fluoride, pentachloride, trioxide, sodium, and americium diuranate. All of the tested components were absorbed through the skin into the blood stream and in excessive amounts were able to produce severe poisoning and death. In contrast, insoluble uranium compounds, such as oxides and tetra fluoride, did not cause significant poisoning when applied to the skin. There is a considerable species difference in susceptibility to dermal toxicity of uranium compounds. Rabbits are the most sensitive followed by rats, guinea pigs and mice. There is up to one hundred-fold difference of LD50 between rabbits and mice. The main poisoning site was the kidney, with similar changes seen in other types of parenteral toxicity. Uranium application to the eye has been studied as a possible port of uranium entry in the internal environment of the living organism because of the hazards of ophthalmic exposure to uranium workers. Application of uranium compounds in the conjunctival sac in rabbits, guinea pigs, and rats included uranium peroxide, dioxide, tetra fluoride, nitrate, fluoride, and sodium and ammonium diuranate. Local damage occurred in animals, ranging from conjunctivitis to corneal ulceration. Of all tested compounds, the most severe reactions were encountered with dry uranium penta- chloride. Necrosis of periorbital tissue occurred followed by death in 50% of animals. Uranyl nitrate, fluoride, and Na-diuranate were absorbed from the conjunctiva and caused systemic poisoning. Uranium tetrafluoride and diuranate caused systemic poisoning with very little local irritation.

Chemical poisoning with uranium compounds after respiratory exposure has been studied extensively in order to establish safety standards for the control

Re:uranium short-term LD50 is as low as 0.2 mg/m3

[js7a]

Uranium burns in air. Burning, for those of you who haven't had the most basic chemistry, means forming oxides. The atomic weight is high enough that the individual fragments burn for much longer than most metals that burn in air. It is easy to inhale fragments still burning. Then the compound is you.

The chemical toxicities of natural uranium and depleted uranium are identical and are dependent on dose, chemical form and route of exposure. On impact with a hard target, a fraction of the depleted uranium in munitions undergoes spontaneous ignition and small, relatively insoluble particles of mainly uranium oxides, as well as fragments of metallic depleted uranium are formed.

Pathways for exposure to depleted uranium that has been used in military operations are the same as those for natural uranium and are: 1. Inhalation in smoke and dust; 2. Hand to mouth contamination and ingestion of dusts; 3. Contamination of wounds; 4. Skin contact; 5. Agricultural pathways through uptake by crops or grazing animals; and 6. Accumulation in drinking water.

All of those require compounds to result in toxicity, as pure finely seperated uranium metal precipitates and sinks rapidly.

Once any form enters the liver, though, various enzimes are exposed to the compound and the number of compounds increases superexponentialy (combinatorically).

Re:How are these "censored"?

[shanen]

Project Censored regards them as censored if the story receives signficantly less public coverage than the importance of the story merits. They are especially interested in stories that the regular media drop because they expose the bias of the mass media themselves. Yes, anyone can publish anything on the Web, but lot's of it is effectively censored by being ignored, even when it's the ugly truth. Or especially when...

Just picking a random example off the list, Cheney's handling of the "national" energy policy is extremely important, but has received very little coverage. Even if you regard his behavior as reasonable, the degree of corporate influence is an important public concern.

However, I think that his "arguments" are fatally flawed. Cheney is supposed to be serving the public, and any "advice" that can only be provided if it's source is concealed from the public is surely NOT in the public interest. If it WAS in the public interest, the source would not be afraid of exposure in the first place.

In the extreme case, Cheney seems to be arguing that America is no longer a democratic republic or republican democracy, but a kind of sanctioned-by-50%-of-the-voters corporate-owned dictatorship. I'd wager you haven't seen much consideration of THAT story on Fox "News".

Re:still censored..

[reynolds_john]

Well, it won't matter what "facts" are presented, since each side (left, right) will determine what they want to believe anyway.

However, it doesn't take much to stumble upon well researched information concerning the Swift Boat Veterans themselves, nor the actual photocopies of the citations for John Kerry. I present the following URLs for you to make up your own mind, and I welcome any other URLs:

FactCheck.org
Disinformation.org
Washington Post
Swift Boats Eriposte"
... there are so many more I can't even count, just Google for yourself.

I must admit, I find it amazing that people continue to attack Kerry's role in Vietnam, while seemingly at the same time perfectly able to ignore the ample facts that George W. Bush didn't make it anywhere near Vietnam, and Vice President Dick Cheney managed to skirt the war entirely. Those are indisuputable facts.