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"."
...how all of these 'censored' stories reflect a left-leaning viewpoint.
The problem I have is more that "censored" implies that the government went through with a pair of scissors and yanked out the offending stories. Not being widely covered is not really the same thing as being censored.
Also, the site seems to be heavily Democratic in orientation. This could be a result of the more left-leaning college students who compile it, I suppose. But I wouldn't take the whole thing as a simple, unbiased academic exercise. Their commentary on the draft, for instance, reeks of a rather lop-sided view of the issue.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
While I don't think it is going to happen, I thought this was a really interesting article on the draft issue...and it came out of the Family Circle of all places. If my wife hadn't had it laying around, I would have probably never even heard about this. -- Usurper_ii
Could your child be drafted?
by Jan Goodwin
High-school seniors have a lot on their minds these days--applying to
college, getting accepted, finding the funds to pay for it, then worrying
about whether they can get a job once they graduate. One thing they hadn't
counted on, however, was being drafted into the military when they turn 18.
There hasn't been a draft in the United States since 1973, but indications
are strong that next year that may change. And for the first time, young
women as well as men can expect to be called.
Why a return to the draft? Because our troops (stationed in two-thirds of
the world's countries) are spread so thinly, and because high casualty rates
in Iraq and Afghanistan have dramatically reduced recruitment and
reenlist-ment levels. A poll taken last year by Stars and Stripes, a
Pentagon-funded newspaper for service personnel, found that 49 percent of
respondents were not planning to reenlist.
According to retired U.S. Army Colonel David Hackworth, a military analyst
and one of the most decorated officers in the army, the U.S. military is now
so shorthanded that a whopping 40 percent of the 135,000 troops being
rotated into Iraq are National Guard members and reservists. Adds
Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY); '"We haven't called up this level of
reservists since the Korean War."
What's more, if House and Senate bills HR163 and S89 pass, the loophole 'of
college, used by many to avoid serving in Vietnam, will be closed next time
around. All men and women ages 18 to 26 would be eligible for induction once
they have completed high school. Further, the Smart Border Declaration,
signed by Canadian and U.S. officials in December 2001, should keep would-be
draft dodgers in this country.
Congressman Rangel, author of the House bill, which is now before the Armed
Services Committee (Ernest Hollings [D-SC] authored the Senate version),
explains that the Administration's commitment to a prolonged presence in the
Middle East, the prospect of additional military interventions, and the fact
that "half of Guards and reservists say they have no intention to stay in"
are strong indicators that "ultimately we will run out of bodies."
"We shouldn't need a draft," says Rangel, "but now that we've been involved
in a war, the patriotic thing is shared sacrifice. Currently, the rich get a
tax cut, and the poor get a chance to make the ultimate sacrifice."
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), addressing the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee in April, concurred. "Why shouldn't we ask all our citizens to
bear some responsibility and pay some price?'" he said.
Feeling a Draft?
The Administration denies that a draft is in the works. Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld has stated: "We're not going to reimplement a draft. There
is no need for it. The disadvantages of using compulsion to bring into the
armed forces the men and women needed are notable."
But, says Ron Paul, M.D., an eight-term Republican congressman from Texas
and a former Air Force surgeon, '"You don't listen to what they say, you
watch what they do. The Administration says no, but what we've gotten from
the Pentagon and elsewhere is yes."
One sign of that, says Rick Jahnkow, program coordinator of the nonprofit
Project on Youth and Non-Military Opportunities, was that last fall
"[Presidential adviser] Karl Rove polled Republican members of Congress on
how they felt about the draft. They said they'd support the President."
"This is not surprising," comments Dr. Paul, who sits on the International
Relations Committee and was one of only six Republican congressmen who vote
Ron Paul
The SF Bay Guardian runs this list every year, and it's consistently left leaning. However, there are always a few stories on the list that are centrist, irrefutable and frightening. Like these two from the current list:
4) High uranium levels found in troops and civilians
10) New nuke plants: taxpayers support, industry profits
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Project Censored has been around for a long time now. They're hardly sensationalistic - especially when one considers that they rarely get any attention at all from the media. They're left-leaning, sure. They've never pretended any differently.
However, at least they're willing to provide links and references. One rarely sees that much from the right wing crazies who like to smear the work of groups like this.
Don't forget Coral! Just add .nyud.net:8090 onto any domain name, and use the cached web-page, just like this:
i cations/2005/index.html
http://www.projectcensored.org.nyud.net:8090/publ
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
NPR (National Public Radio) and PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) both seem to be overlooked in nearly every debate over the media. (My personal opinion is that they deliver a superior source of news information, giving more information per story, a greater variety of stories, and a greater quantity of stories.)
~UP
Eat the Path.
I'll give you that this list is a list made by a liberal group and does display a leaning. But do they "have no basis in fact?" No. That's not why they were under reported.
As a person who used to work in a daily newspaper in a very conservative market (that I grew up in), I can tell you that large media corporations will skew the news to avoid upsetting the readers' world view so that they can make the guys in marketing happy. They want a good image with the public, and if you are in the center and the public is to the right, then you look like you're to the left. So then you move your paper to the right and suddenly everything is OK.
I saw the editor of our paper tell the entire staff that his goal was that he wanted his phone to stop ringing. He didn't want to have to deal with calls about our liberal rag, which wasn't liberal. Now, for critical thinking, you should RFA on all these stories so you know what you're talking about.
I'm glad the Army met it's 2003 recruiting goals, but that doesn't mean it has all the troops it needs - the goals were not moved to anticipate our current needs; Rumsfeld has lied before; and the instances of the Joint Chiefs of Staff changing its mind about what it wants.
But Congress did put forth two bills to reinstate the draft -- one a protest bill by Democrats.
And more troubling is why the White House increased the Selective Service budget by millions this year.
Regardless, I haven't read the article on the list (and neither have you) so there's nothing to argue about. But nothing you link to here displays any critical thinking, just lapping up the words of conservative mouthpieces.
I'd draw your attention to The Media can Leagally Lie
I've followed a bit of this already; I've even seen interviews with the people involved with the case.
In summary:
The milk in the US contains a chemical additive that is cancer causing. That chemical is produced by Monsanto. The FDA tested a few rats and rubber stamped to drug. It causes distress and health problems in many cows. There is hard evidence that Monsanto knew there was problems with the drug before they even sent it for testing at the FDA. FOX suppressed the story (presumably on behalf of Monsanto) using various different sleazy tactics. The investigative reporters in question refused to sign a NDA, and were later fired after about 80 rewrites of the story. The story was rewritten with lawyers present, not scientists. The pretence was that the story should be balanced. The Monsanto lawyers objected to terms like "carcinogenic", preferring more balanced terms such as "may cause health problems".
The reporters won their court case, to find it over turned at appeal. The reason was that lying isn't a crime, and the whistle blower act only protects employees from business asking them to commit a crime. FOX immediately said that they were 'vindicated', but left out the part about lying.
The milk is being drunk all over the US, and is being served to children at schools.
Many of the articles come from seriously left-leaning rags
And just about every major player in the media market will sell you any news so long as it doesn't hurt the corporate agenda.
It's likely that we'll never require samizdat in this country, but we all require tin-foil hats
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
If the right gave up it would only be because they finally accepted the fact that rational arguments are lost on irrational minds.
#1) Nothing about FAIR's study is air-tight. Any study conducted with the intention of proving a pre-conceived belief should be met with the most extreme skepticism, but this particular piece is nothing more than a transparent attempt at drowning the reader in a mountain of misleading rhetoric and data as if it proved any kind of point.
For instance the survey addresses self-image, a cardinal sin for statistical analysis. People regularly mis-report or under-report their behavior in cases where they would prefer to see themselves as "better" than they actually are. Seriously, it's classic. Take any statistics course in the country and that should be one of the first things you learn. Of course if you ask someone whether or not they're centrist they're generally going to say, especially with "left" and "liberal" having such a negative connotation in this society, even among leftist liberals. Who was the last major politician you can think of who publicly identified himself as a liberal?
The rest of the questions only show that the media isn't as left as FAIR and its interests. I don't think there has ever been a question about media liberals being soft-core, although I wonder whether or not rabid lefties use this as their reason for the ridiculous suggestion that the media is actually right-wing or if they figure that making such preposterous allegations effectively negates claims made about left-leaning media bias.
Anyway, scientific studies are based on data, not self-evaluations. For instance, the fact that an overwhelming majority of journalists, editors, and producers are registered Democrats (over 80%) and that even more have voted Democrat (over 85%) in the last two presidential elections. Or you can look at word usage analyses conducted by universities and independent research institutions that consistently show left-leaning media bias.
#2) Whether or not AIM does a convincing job of stating their argument says nothing at all about the validity of the position, just their ability to argue it. Pretending that their failings, whatever they may be, are evidence that their "side" is wrong is nothing more than a cheap parlor trick. That'd be like someone painting all Democrats as fire-brand racists just because Al Sharpton happened to be one of their presidential candidates.
Seriously, liberals need to get a grip on reality before anyone can take them seriously. Do you see conservatives scared of identifying themselves with that label? I haven't, although I leave open the possibility that my experience may be statistically aberrant. Do you see more than a handful of people trying to say that talk radio isn't strongly right-leaning? Again no, pretty much everyone I've seen admits that the radio goes right, though they justify that bias by saying that they're trying to counter left-leaning television media.
Until liberals can: A) admit their own faults and B) admit that conservatives aren't the spawn of Satan, there really isn't much chance of productive discussion with them. It takes a solid grasp of reality, honest introspection, and a willingness to listen for two sides to get together. I'll grant that conservatives have certainly been out of line at times themselves as well, but right now the left is so hate-filled and irrational that it's damaging and perhaps even threatening our democracy.
And as for the original subject of the thread, this list is certainly biased but I have no problem giving attention to any of those "stories." It would certainly have more credibility if it attempted to be representative in the slightest, but that doesn't mean they automatically don't have valid points to make.
I'm an SSU grad ('91). Carl Jensen is a little paranoid and conspiratorial. Everything is black hat stuff. Problem is, he did some good things for a while, and starting reading the press clippings, then lost it. I had one class with him, and even then, he was going on and on about the media (which oddly enough is controlled by his lefty buddies) being a tool of the gov't. Like the MSM ws ever in the tank for Reagan/Bush, et al. Please. How about Evan Thomas' claim the media is for Kerry and it gives him 15 points.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Are these censored, or were they simply not picked up the outlets which the writers had wanted so desperately to appear in?
There is a huge difference. I read several of the aforementioned articles during their original runs. No laws were passed banning them, and the US government never made any attempt to stop their runs. Therefore, no censorship.
True censorship exists in this world. It seems to me, however, that this list is nothing more than a couple of authors whining about their stories not running as widely as they had wanted.
It boils down to class, and class warfare. It always has and always will. Marx was wrong about prescriptions, but his analysis was spot on 150 years ago, and it's still dead accurate.
Some things are different: events are certainly moving on a deeper and larger scale than the capitalists could possibly muster in 1870, but the structure has remained the same: there are a very few people on top and a lot of people on the bottom. The globalisation of wealth has made entire nations part of the "top" and entire continents part of the "bottom" - and you know who's getting fucked.
"Conservatives" (especially those of the more recent "neocon" variety, who are little more than penny ante fascists) are people who have internalised the false consciousness machine of contemporary capitalist culture to such a degree that they cheerfully support the plutocrats who enslave them. In fact, their culturally instilled cranio-rectal inversion is so complete, they don't see themselves as being willing participants in their own self enslavement - they see themselves as supporters of "freedom and liberty".
Meanwhile, the powers that be are re-aligning the economies into Orwellian superstates. The Europeans are doing it through an opt-in confederacy (EU), the Americans are doing it with their typically murderously belligerent policy of co-option, destruction and subordination (from Wounded Knee to Baghdad) and forming Oceania by way of NAFTA. East Asia is forming more slowly, as is typical of the Chinese Empire.
The great battle will be between a collapsing Oceania and a rising EastAsia. Eurasia will sit on the sidelines and watch the two destroy each other, and then move in to scoop up what's left.
This isn't tinfoil hat theory. this is stuff that has been documented over and over and over.
here
Here
and HERE.
Now, if you have any sense: ORGANISE A COHERENT RESISTANCE AND GET A PLACE AT THE TABLE OF OCEANIA. Prevent the disaster. If the neocon agenda goes on by its own logic, there will be an eventual war between EastAsia and Oceania. It will be fought through terror proxies first, then localised wars and rebeliions at the periphery. The results will be millions dead so the rich bastards running the American State can stay rich and the powerful shitbags running the Chinese Gov stay in power.
WAKE UP PEOPLE. Or don't: just pretend it isn't happening and surrender your children to be cannon fodder in some far off oil rich country for the sake of Exxon, Halliburton, and Walmart.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
"Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defense with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war crime'."
This is why the story is censored. Period.
Also, there is much speculation that bunker buster bombs have been upgraded with DU to make them more effective - since the alternative is tungsten which supposedly is less effective for various reasons than DU. The Pentagon, of course, is NOT saying what is being used or considered for use in bunker buster bombs.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
That's a very intereting statement, especially when looked at in conjunction with the fact that hundreds of scientists, including 20 Nobel laureats, say that the current government is falsifying data and stacking the panels which come up with the data with political appointees.
/does/ increase the levels of depleted uranium in the population...and that leads to radioactive poisoning due to the fact that the DU does not burn up entirely during use. And, not so oddly enough, Gulf War Syndrome looks suspiciously like low level radiation poisoning.
This:
"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"
is just a bogus statement. It doesn't refute anything, and is actually selfnegating...and really tells me that you know shit about science, let alone the science behind nuclear physics. Shooting depleted uranium shells
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?