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"."
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.
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
Who controls the media in this country?
Corporations and shareholders?
But seriously, how naive are you?
Liberal journalists report to sub-editors who report to editors who report to directors who report to boards who report to shareholders. You think the board of any major news-gathering organisation consist of Socialist Party members - or Republicans? Or at least people on salaries that would benefit more from a Republican economic policy than a Democrat one?
Maybe political power rests with the "right" but the last time I checked the balance of power in the Senate and House was pretty evenly matched. Take off your tin-foil hat.
The Senate and House serve as a balance to the Office of the President; I'd suggest if they're split evenly if gives greater power (opportunity, whatever) to the President. You neglected to mention the Legislative branch; however, I'll concede that there, too, there are balances. It doesn't alter the fact that - right now - most people would acknowledge that it would be more accurate to describe the USA as "right-wing", compared to, say, 5 years ago (which most people, in the US at least[1], would probably class as "left-wing").
And I resent the implication in the tin-foil hat comment. I made a comment about political reality, not some half-baked fear that "those damn Republicans are out to draft my daughter".
[1] I'm not a US resident: I regard Clinton as a centrist politican, albeit slightly left-of-centre.
This is where the serious fun begins.
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
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.