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:-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.