Slashdot Mirror
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"."
I'm an avid progressive, and I identify with many of the issues presented in this list ... but all of these articles should be taken with a grain of salt. ... these are all good sources of information, but you've got to keep a close eye on what you're reading, and sift through the editorializing to get to the facts.
Many of the articles come from seriously left-leaning rags. BuzzFlash, for example, is hyperliberal, and the editorials are often kind of tin-foil hat. Oneworld.net, "Organic Consumer"
Just my 3.14...
-- m.Operandi
Holy shit Batman!
I am sure during the Clinton years it would be: Baby Killer Lobbying Groups Influence Judicial Appointments!
Well, probably not, since these lists are pretty left in their bias.
Everyone once in awhile, the list does have very interesting info. But this is just like reading something from MoveOn.org.
Anyone who follows the news beyond CNN, would know this and wouldnt be too alarmed by these "censored" stories.
A more appropriate title for this list would have been the 25 most ignored or underreported new stories. I agree that most of the stories mentioned were underreported in the media, they were not censored. Proof being the various references and links shown in each article.
It's not that interesting. Power right now rests with the right; stories with a right-wing slant are promoted, left-leaning stories demoted or censored. The time to complain about a left-wing slant in when power rests with the left.
This is where the serious fun begins.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Top 25 US Stories not reported by the US media. Some other nations media may well have covered this stuff.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
On the contrary, take #4 for example, High Levels of Uranium Found in Troops and Civilians, which is ssupported by several publications in the peer-reviewed medical literature.
Why would anyone be so quick to call it propoganda? 10,000 Gulf War vets have already died of diseases with symptoms identical to uranium dust inhalation. Why deny it?
Here are the pertinent excerpts, if you don't believe them then tell me exactly what you don't believe:
Because most of the main US media outlets are, at least from what I see in the UK, terribly right wing?
Get your own free personal location tracker
Wonder if this story will get covered by the American press. The factual basis seems much more sound than the Swift Boat Liars.
Yes, in all forms of media, in all places.
Which is why where I live in Southwestern Virginia, the 700 Club dominates my television programming, and I can't find anything on the radio that isn't conservative talk shows or Gospel.
Not everyone lives in New York.
It is worth noting several things:
(1) Every branch of the military is meeting or exceeding recruitment and re-enlistment goals (unlike in the 1990s).
(2) The all volunteer military used to be twice the size it is now (prior to cuts at the end of the cold war), so there is every reason to think that the military could double in size without a draft.
(3) The politicians warning of a return of the draft are in fact the sponsors of the bills that would bring back the draft. In other words the *only* people showing an interest in the draft are opponents of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
(4) And (3) is no surprise because most of the opposition to the Vietnam war was really opposition to the draft. The last thing that the Bush administration wants is to bring back the draft.
Opponents of these wars think that if the draft is brought back then opposition to the wars will grow. Which in turn is why the Bush administration has no interest in the draft whatsoever. In fact Donald Rumsfeld resisted an expansion of the military by a mere 30,000 volunteer troops. The idea that he would want to expand the military with hundreds of thousands of conscripts is nonsense.
Actually there is a lot of 'soft' censoring going on where mass media do not report or downplay facts that might harm political interests. Stuff gets labeled unpatriotic; foxnews estimates several tens of thousands demonstraters hit the streets in new york when other newssources are reporting several hundreds of thousands; CNN literally quoting some defense department monkey (50 terrorists have died, no mention of the dozens of civilians that were in the area). That sort of thing.
Frequently, the facts are picked up by mass media anyway after they've been exposed sufficiently by other media. But very often facts are succesfully hidden/misrepresented. Photos from dead US soldiers are rare. On a few occasions such photos made frontpage news but considering the amount of casualties there have actually been few of these reports. The US government discourages such reports and the media comply.
A disturbing recent trend is to label anything out of line with the republican party's vision as unpatriotic and liberal. The latter used to be a compliment but somehow the reality distortion field that covers the US nowadays has turned this into something evil. It's really amusing to watch the 'land of the free' become scared of 'liberal' opinions. The US is 'at war with terrorism' and anybody who says otherwise is a dangerous leftwing extremist.
Jilles
Wow, this is has to be one of the most biased flamebait articles I have ever seen posted on Slashdot. These so-called "Censored" stories are no better than one organization's personal opinion pieces of what they believe is wrong in the world with little or no evidence of censoring by the media or even evidence of their opinions.
Take "Wealth Inequality in 21st Century Threatens Economy and Democracy". It is filled with zero-sum fallacies and very little hard evidence to back up their facts. Blaming Africa's troubles on other's countries successes makes about as much sense as your mother telling you to eat your veggies because people are starving in China. No mention is made of such factors as the continual warfare that plagues much of the African continent. In addition statements such as "As rich countries, strip poorer countries of their natural resources in an attempt to re-stabilize their own, the people of poor countries become increasingly desperate." are presented with absolutely no supporting evidence.
Going to some others: "#7: Conservative Organization Drives Judicial Appointments" Hmm, as if the ACLU, NOW, and NARAL have no affect on the Democrat's choice of Judicial Appointments.
"The Media Can Legally Lie" This one seems most hypocritical. 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?
We also have the conflicting "Media and Government Ignore Dwindling Oil Supplies" and "New Nuke Plants: Taxpayers Support, Industry Profits". So if oil supplies are dwindling don't we want the government to encourage new forms of energy? Seems like pretty luddite thinking to me.
Oh well, what can you do.
Brian
PS Glad I got some karma to burn cause I'm probably going to get killed for this post. I would prefer people actually respond rather than mod down, but I know they won't
Well, anyway, one thing that this presidential campaign has shown me is that one of the fundamental difference between Bush supporters and those who oppose him is conformity. With regard to those who accuse others of tinfoilhattism, are they pragmatic spotters of nonsensical troublemakers, or are they conformist sheeple, willing to goosestep for whatever cause the hierarchy tells them to?
Just so we're clear, I had no idea whether you were talking about reps or dems until I read it for the third time. In my opinion anyone who votes for either of the two major GovCorp parties is a "conformist sheeple".
Vote Independent!!!
On the right, FAIR's counterpart is Accuracy In Media, which is currently running as their top story, "The Big Bad FBI -- The New York Times destroyed the life of Steven Hatfill in the anthrax case." As far as I can tell, AIM is willing to apologize for the justice department, but doesn't even bother to put out any study at all claiming left-wing media bias. Don't you think they would at least try to put out a counter study?
When AIM first started out, they used to do one every month, but then FAIR started posting counterpoints and some AP writer would pick the two up and put the highlights from each on the wires. Those highlights always seemed to favor FAIR's viewpoint, and the AP stories started saying so.
So now AIM doesn't even make any general claims about a pervasive bias. Think about it.
The people who actually decide what goes on the air and in print over are overwhelmingly conservative. This has been shown in many studies yet somehow people dredge up that tired old arguement about liberal journalists. Yea journalists tend to be more liberal then not, let's not forget who is really in charge.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
I'm reading through these, and they list the sources where the stories ran..and they did run...in various magazines, journals and newspapers.
So how is this considered censored?
censor
n : a person who is authorized to read publications or correspondence
or to watch theatrical performances and suppress in whole or in part anything
considered obscene or politically unacceptable.
v 1: forbid the public distribution of ( a movie or a newspaper)
[syn: ban]
2: subject to political, religious, or moral censorship; "This
magazine is censored by the government"
Now, if it were listed as "Important News Stories That Are Not Being Followed Through On"...then we got ourselves a list my friend.
But the title alone makes it seem like the US government is pulling these stories and saying they can't be run at all...which isn't the case.
From the Project Censored website their mission statement contains:
From these, Project Censored compiles an annual list of 25 news stories of social significance that have been overlooked, under-reported or self-censored by the country's major national news media.
Overlooked...you betcha. Under-reported...yes, I agree with that. Self-censored? I don't see that any of them were pulled here in the US...but perhaps they were in other countries? Reading through their list (the ones I could get to before it was Slashdotted) I couldn't find where the censorship fell other than just no mainstream media picking up on the stories.
Interesting read though...after the Slashdot crowd leaves I'll be back reading it.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
I went to projectcensored.org looking for their definition of "censored" and the criteria they use to determine "most censored". I found neither.
In my book, you aren't being censored when an editor turns down your story. You aren't being censored when your story is cut from the final edition to make room for the piece about an explosion in a local church.
If the Ministry of Information orders you not to write that story, that's censorshp. Ditto if the orders come from your corporate headquarters.
Projectcensored says it tracks the news from "independent" sources (not that these sources are listed on their site), but neglects to tell us about the political agendas of any of those sources. (Of course, the word "independent" is usually, and incorrectly, construed to mean "impartial".) An organization might be "independent" of outside financing, but it will lack credibility as an "independent" source if its purpose is to foster a political agenda. In any case, with a personality like Noam Chomsky helping them spot "censorship", claims of "independence" evaporate.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
you really think that anybody like saddam could bribe countries in the g7? You think such countries are so poor they have to take money from a old, failing dictator, when they could just sell airbuses to china?
. . . . . . .
may u!sh 2 sm!le at dz!z bad nn.!m!tat!ion
The project Censored site it nothing more than a compilation of stories which have been reported as censored by people who haven't a clue about what they are talking about. Let take for example a story about the "Radiation Poisoning" of the Afganastani people, and are that is my studied, both undergraduate and graduate, and professionally certified area of expertise. This story is filled with "Junk science" that every peer reviewed journal has discredited. They claimed the same nonsense in Bosnia due to our use of depleted uranium, and these were all found to be false. Depleted uranium is just that "depleted" it cannot become "non-depleted" and its presence does not cause levels of "non-depleted" uranium in the population. I've seen the studies, the data, and have had close friends sent on missions to take samples, perform laboratory analysis, and draw scientific conclusions. None of which agree with the pseudo science spawned by the activists who do not follow chain of custody sample collection and perform substandard laboratory analysis. These stories are hardly "censored" in fact the study of this data is out in the public forum, its just that the people trying to prove their point of radiation poisoning have been entirely discredited in the scientfic arena. The solution? Claim "censorship" and a coverup to draw media attention because you can't prove your point with science. So revert to inuendo and distortion. So very sad.
If the media were slanted to the left...
Someone would be working harder to investigate why no-bid contracts were let to the Vice-President's former company. IMHO, the "Only Haliburten is big enough to do that kind of stuff," excuse doesn't really wash.
Nobody saw 9/11 coming... Nobody in the government was even looking that direction! No wonder nobody put the pieces together, the pieces weren't on the table. After Inauguration day in 2001, the focus of the US left the Middle East and moved to Missle Defense and the ABM treaty. It was as palpable as seeing the focus of the Eye of Sauron move at the end of Return of the King.
Faulty intelligence - oops. The year before the War in Iraq, it there was reporting that the Administration was shopping for Intelligence that would support it's desire for War. At the time, it was also well-reported that CIA evidence didn't support invasion. Stunning that the CIA ended up taking the fall.
President Bush's National Guard records have 'disappeared', as well as any opportunity to establish whether he really was or was not AWOL that year of Alabama service prior to early discharge.
The Vice President held closed-door sessions to establish a National Energy Policy, with no public records. "Candid opinions" aside, this is part of national policy, it affects all of us, and we have NO visibility into the process, or even the players.
Speaking of the Cloak of Secrecy, when you spread that Cloak around the government, it goes all the way to the bottom. It's not enough to trust the Man at the Top, you have to trust EVERYONE under him - right down to the guards at Abu Graib. The Constitution attempted to create a government where you could trust the process, so that if the people were not trustworthy, there would be checks and balances.
Finally, if it were a "liberal media"....
It wouldn't have hounded Al Gore into oblivion, while giving a giving G.W. Bush a pass on his very limited qualifications. Bush was a 1.5 term governor - less than 6 years on public service.
It wouldn't have hounded Bill Clinton for 7.5 years of his presidency, and said nothing as a 7.5 year "fishing expedition" began over a measly $200,000 real estate *loss*. Lewinsky was inexcusable, but it hadn't even happened when the fishing expedition began, or went through it's first several morphs.
It wouldn't now be giving Kerry short-shrift on getting his message out, while forgiving above Bush administration issues. The ONLY time I've heard Kerry sound interesting or impressive was the acceptance speech on C-SPAN - the one time I've heard more than two sentences out of his own mouth without some form of extraction or editorializing.
And if you don't believe that, look on Slashdot! Others of the European pursuasion have stated that even the American Left is to the Right of Europe's center. We can't see or evaluate slant, because we're all so slanted, ourselves.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
So anyone can write hysterical nonsense now and if it isn't published they can claim censorship, even if their assertions were completely baseless?
The owners of publications have always hade the ability to edit content, that does not equate to censorship, it is their own filter to eliminate hysterical crap. It's how they work without moderators slashdot.
Exactly how is reporting without question that Iraq had WMDs being a left-wing outlet?
Exactly how is reporting without question that Saddam's troops pulled babies out of incubators prior to Gulf War 1 being a left-wing outlet?
Exactly how is ignoring the number of civilian casualties in Iraq being a left-wing outlet?
Exactly how is under-reporting the number of Palestinian civilian casualties, while never failing to mention a single Palestinian terrorist attack, being a left-wing outlet?
Exactly how is ignoring the Red Cross's reports about Abu Ghraib, a YEAR before the story finally broke loose, being a left-wing outlet?
Exactly how is giving Michael Moore less airtime than Ann Coulter, when they were both promoting their books a couple of years ago, being a left-wing outlet?
In fact, how is it that you can look at that list of under-reported stories, a large number of which are left-wing issues, and say that the media is biased to the left?
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Those numbers are totally flawed. A more accurate depiction of the average american can be made by asking questions about issues rather than flat out asking whether one holds a liberal or conservative idealogy. Conservatives have tarnished the word "liberal" and people fear that label. When asked about the issues themselves more people have liberal beliefs than conservative beliefs. The gap between people who call themselves liberal and people who have liberal beliefs is very large. The label someone gives themself does not necessarily hold true. Just look at Zell Miller.
Time makes more converts than reason
I think the perception that the list of stories is "left leaning" has as much to do with the lean of the stories themselves as the subject matter.
Ignoring whether the stories have any bias or agenda, however, let's look at the list:
There are many phrases in the list identified with a leftist agenda: "Bush Administration Censors...", "Threatens Intellectual Freedom...", "...Represses Labor Unions...".
The stories are pretty much ALL inflammatory, and obviously slanted. Like in story #7: "Bush has the capability to turn the courts over to ultra right-wing ideologues." Hmmm... possibly left leaning.
You may or may not agree that some of these issues deserve more discussion in the mainstream media. I had heard most of these stories before I saw the list, so I don't think any in way they were censored, so much as they were uninteresting and/or overblown.
Still, let's call a spade a spade. Left-leaning? Well, yea.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Wal-Mart...to many it is a pariah, a sadist, something to be scorned and looked down upon. For others, it quite simply the place where they buy everything because its cheap. Let's look at the article's points
Wal-Mart opposition overseas has been from unions (over low pay)
Wal-Mart has always been anti-union. There has only been one successful union organization I believe (butchers in one of the stores) and Wal-Mart turned around, fired them all, and started buying beef from a distributor. Wal-Mart doesn't apologize for it and most other grocery stores if they had their druthers would probably do the same. Wal-Mart just ensured that this didn't happen early on and it is not at point in its promience and power that no union can organize it.
Local regulators (over predatory pricing)
Wal-Mart basically puts the clamp on you when your a supplier because they are the toughest customer in the world. In fact, there are many businesses that will not deal with Wal-Mart because they do not want to go through the pain of readying themselves to meet Wal-Mart's demands and becoming beholden to what will become their largest customer if successful in a region trial. You do not have to choose to do so, but people see the number of SKUs you can sell to them and go for it. Wal-Mart, in turn, will demand 180 day payment, return of all unsold items, only pay for those items that have actually been sold to a customer, a set delivery time and quantity (if you miss either one of these your basically thrown out as a supplier, no chance ever again to redeem yourself), and a 5% reduction in cost to Wal-Mart each year. Wal-Mart in turn passes this back to the consumer. When someone would ask Sam Walton to do a coupon or a special offer, he would tell them take the amount we would spend on it and drop the price by that much. In the end its the difference between a consumer spending $120 - $130 versus spending $100 at Wal-Mart.
and small businesses that face financial ruin....In the U.K, Wal-Mart's takeover of Asda has had a devastating effect. Award-wining food journalist Joanna Blythman's new book called "Shopped: The Shocking Power of British Supermarkets" published May 2004 outlines how: "I learned that UK supermarkets now jump to the tune of our second largest chain, Asda. Since 1999 when it was taken over by the biggest retailer in the world, the U.S. chain Wal-Mart, Asda's strategy of 'Every Day Low Pricing', has triggered a supermarket price war in which chains without buying muscle are disadvantaged...Every week in the UK, 50 specialist shops like butchers and bakers are closing and one farmer or farm worker commits suicide. We enter a race to the bottom where everyone loses, especially the consumer.
Wal-Mart never put any small Mom and Pop out-of-business, you and I did. Those butchers and bakers aren't closing because they have customers, they're closing because you and I and the rest of the people you know find the same staples of their lives at Wal-Mart for far cheaper.
Final thought, seven cents of every dollar spent in America is spent at Wal-Mart. Think about that for a moment, scary isn't it. However, when you goto Wal-Mart do you think about the fact your going to a store that makes more money then probably half the nations on the planet. No, you think about cheap prices. Sam Walton found it was more profitable to serve 95% of the population well then to only serve 5% and the in the process made just about every company in America and abroad that deals with Wal-Mart better in the process. While Wal-Mart does put the squeeze on its producers and ends up squeezing the inefficiences out of the supply chain below it because every year you and I will expect prices to fall on a product at Wal-Mart.
I can understand editing out a dull story, or a news item containing offensive content. But when a liberal paper decides to not publish reports of some democratic senators questionable activities, or a conservative news channel decides to not mention how a republican president is trashing Science, your saying this is just an "editorial cut" and not politicaly motivated censorship?
Note: I'm not an American. But I do follow both sides of this overblown, politically-motivated "controversy".
all I've seen is attacks on this group of veterans. I've hardly seen ANY attempt at all to discredit even a single claim of theirs.
Then I strongly suggest you take a moment to read Salon, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, or The Washington Post. And actually read, rather than filtering input according to your own biases. I'll start you off with a quote, from the LA Times: "These charges against John Kerry are false. Or at least there is no good evidence that they are true."
So far almost every attack on the Swift Boat Veterans has been a personal, ad hominem attack on these veterans' character, not on their claims.
False. Here are the facts:
Thurlow and others in the same five-boat Swift flotilla as Kerry on the night in question (when Kerry recued Rassman) also came under fire. Indeed, Thurlow won a Bronze Star for his actions in rescuing a comrade under enemy fire. This is the same Thurlow who has claimed that there was no enemy fire that night. In other words, if what Thurlow says now is correct, he should have refused the Bronze Star citation, or returned it once he started making his claims. He has not done either.
Why won't he (kerry) release all his medical and other service records?
He has. The only records he has not released are his review papers.
Why did Kerry lie about spending Christmas in Cambodia?
There's a difference between "lying" and "being mistaken." For example:
- After 9/11, President Bush claimed repeatedly that he had seen the second plane fly into the WTC live on television. This is obviously incorrect - he was sitting glassy-eyed in a classroom of children leafing through "My Pet Goat" at the time.
- At the RNC convention, Govenor Schwarzenegger claimed that growing up in Austria he had seen Soviet tanks parked in the streets. This is patently flase - the Soviets had retreated from Austria years before he was born.
In other words, people often confuse their own histories. Was Kerry in Cambodia? Almost certainly - Larry Thurlow, one of his chief accusers, was recorded telling Nixon that he (Thurlow) had been in Cambodia. Was it neccessasarily in Christmas? No - and that;s probably where Kerry's recollection is getting mixed up. That doesn't mean that Kerry is lying, any more than Bush or the Govenator are. Memory of emotional situations is simply extremely poor.
Why do so many people that served alongside and above Kerry...
First, you are stretching the term "served with him". You mean "were also in Vietnam during the war". Few of the SBVT's "served" with Kerry (i.e. on the same boat, or the same unit). And they're saying what they're claiming because of Kerry's Congressional testimony, which they felt "slandered" vets. They feel that Kerry lied over that, but can't contradict it (that whole messy My Lai incident, amoung others, kinda gets in the way) - so they feel justified in lying about his record.
Really? Like the officer who had his name added to the SBVT's claims without being asked? Or the officers who claimed, up to two years ago, that Kerry was a fine and outstanding officer? Or the officers who have since recanted adding thier names to the SBVT's list?
When are we going to get answers from Kerry and not ad hominem attacks?
You've had answers. Every single piece of Naval documentation, every crewmember on Kerry's boat (with the exception of that one gunner - who has changed his story several times) and several naval personell who were never part of Kerry's "Band of Brothers" or the SBVT's but who have now voluntarily come forward, have reinforced and confirmed Kerry's record.
Really? Almost everything I've heard has been about how the Swift Boat Veteran's claims contradict the official records & the few eye witnesses who are still living.
I suppose you could consider it an attack on their character when people talk about how these veterans insist that _they_ are right, and the records & the eye-witnesses are wrong (or lying), even though many of these guys weren't directly involved in the incidents they are criticising. And when people point out that many of the same people made similar criticisms about McCain (with about as much credibility).
If these guys were talking about they had heard that the fish that some competitor caught wasn't really all that big (even though the fish had been weighed & recorded by the official fishing organization), then most of the audience would probably call them liars - especially if they were caught being paid lots of money by another fisherman after saying such things, and if they had also said such things about another competitor at the _last_ fishing competition. Since this is politics though, anybody supporting Kerry calls them liars, and anyone supporting Bush says anybody contradicting them is lying.