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"."
These stories aren't really censored, they are being ignored, because they are blatantly false leftist propoganda. How this qualifies as a slashdot story is beyond me...
If you value your eyes, do not follow that link, leads to page with a pic of the goatse.cx man.
Well, I would think that the majority of the media, being strongly left-leaning and biased, would report these stories that could potentially hurt the Bush Administration at every opportunity. The fact that they do not implies that the leftist media know that these stories are not true, and that moderate America would be turned off by the reporting of such stories. Do you have any response to that? No? Thought not.
...is that the US media are the most censored on Earth. Look at the list of censored stories here. Compare to the list from allegedly "despotic" mainland China. What? You say you can't compare them, because there isn't a list from China? Well, isn't that interesting: 25 stories censored by our "free" (capitalist) media, and that's just the tip of the iceberg -- and not a single story censored by the media of the PRC. You hear occasional wild claims from Western media, but don't you think that if the Chinese media were censored, they'd report on it? Of course they would. But they don't. Because it's not happening.
This story, of course, has been censored in the West.
And you would be terribly wrong.
OK, maybe they're right wing compared to what you have over there, but to anyone who has studied media and politics, the only media remotely "right-wing" which is to say centrist, is Fox News/NY Daily News/Boston Herald.
See my previous post. It really depends on what you mean by right wing, we're not talking Moussolini here.
What bullshit. Everything on it is anti-republican.
I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
No big deal here. You can guess the so-called censored stories. They are basically your conspiracy theory bash Bush stories! It's too bad they don't mention John Kerry, and the DNCs, attempt to censor the Swift Boat Veterans using these letters.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Don't signed affadavits count for anything anymore?
Basically, you've got Kerry with 13 guys who agree with him versus every other man in his unit, including his entire chain of command - about 250 men total. Democrats, Republicans, but all men who absolutely despise Kerry for the way he behaved in Viet Nam.
Sorry, but I can't believe Rove bought off 250 men - especially when they have forced Kerry to admit that he lied about one incident and forced him to quietly retract several items from his website - items like taking credit for other commanders' combat missions.
Clear, Dark Skies
Because the labels are meaningless. It would be slightly more honest to just call them A and B, because the liberals certainly aren't all that intent on letting me keep any of my liberties (unless they are trivial... they're all for me being able to marry another man, but lord forbid I want to fly without having an internal passport) and the conservatives sure as hell aren't about "conserving" anything, whether that is just stodgy old traditions, our fast dwindling oil supplies, or even our tax revenue.
Actually, I've reached the conclusion that there is only one political party, even if it has two names, and gets to nominate two presidential candidates. Even if not literally true (as part of some tinfoilhat conspiracy) for practical purposes it's imperative to act as if that's the case. I want to barf everytime I hear that the Iraq situation is our most important problem... anyone that believes that is a fool.
How the hell did you get modded 'informative'? Oh wait, we're at the beyond left leaning slashdot.... where Michael Moore films are considered factual and un-biased.
-Tim
Wow, this is news to me. I'm sorry but out of all the news stories and coverage in the so-called "right-wing" mainstream media, 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.
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. The Kerry campaign, and many ex-Clintonistas, keep repeating crap like "Bush is behind it" (patently false), "these men didn't serve on Kerry's boat" (many of them were next to his boat, but hey look, they now have Kerry's gunner, who WAS on Kerry's boat), or "they're funded by Republicans" (so, should Democrats be funding them? Or, how does that change their message?) and lots of other junk like that.
Why doesn't Kerry confront their claims head-on? Why won't he release all his medical and other service records? Why did Kerry lie about spending Christmas in Cambodia? An event that he claims was "seared -- seared -- in [him]," and changed his life. Why do so many people that served alongside and above Kerry (including almost all of his commanding officers) feel that Kerry is not fit to be Commander in Chief? When are we going to get answers from Kerry and not ad hominem attacks?
I'm sorry, but the number of veterans that served with Kerry and don't want him to be president far outnumbers the veterans that served with him and want him to be president. These vets earned their right to speak just as much as Kerry did and they should be allowed to tell their story. This is still America isn't it? We do still have freedom of speech don't we? Or is it only when John Kerry agrees with it?
Of course no one will be able to read what I have to say because Slashdot is so "anybody but Bush" that the moderators here would mod up Satan, Bill Gates or even Darl McBride before they'd allow a right-leaning point of view.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
The Dixie Chicks were specifically targetted by right-wing groups in an agit-prop "Press Release as Media Button Push" campaign. Yes, folks didn't like what they said. But it was more of the way what they said was positioned by extremist agenda-pushers and their teams of pundits than anything else.
...
If the positioning on the Dixie Chicks campaign had been "They're a group of young professional hard-working women who have worked hard to be in the position they are in, and they are using that position to state an unpopular view in spite of the consequences", there would've been more public acceptance of their situation. But instead, they were attacked for exercising their rights, as artists, to communicate to the masses.
The Dixie Chicks agit-prop campaign was an attack on Art. It should come as no surprise however, that the illiterate masses didn't recognize it as that, and instead decided to make it their 'agitated personal accepted view of the week'
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
There is a very frightening kind of censorship going on today in America. The men and businesses responsible for the delivery of news and social information continue to become more and more concentrated among fewer and fewer purveyors. In the growing need to avoid laws preventing monopolies, these men and businesses rely on support from political leaders to insure that they will have somebody running interference for them when the time comes (and that they will have passed favorable laws that allow them to own and control all the information the vast majority of Americans can and will hear.)
In a recent situation, a filmaker asked CBS if they could have a film clip of President Bush. The clip contained one of Bush's many mispeakings. Normally such material is covered by public use laws, however, CBS declared the footage copyrighted and owned, and refused to let the film maker have the footage in question. Clearly in an attempt to protect and garner favor from the President and his party. Many journalists now openly admit that there are storied they cannot tell, because they've been told they can't by the authorities in the companies that own their news or information service.
The censorship we are speaking of, is the kind that evolves from an institution that controls the flow of information, then decides how to edit, lean, present, and if need be bury information to serves it own ends. We are seeing the death of free journalism, and the few remaining sources of untainted information are being savaged by people who have an agenda that demands keeping the American public ignorant and powerless.
We've seen this behavior time and again on another continent, in Germany, Russia, and easern Europe. It was evil then, and the stench is still clear. The beating heart of a free society, is an unencumbered media, with a diverse ownership, and wide separation from government. Anything else is one more link in a chain that end with totalitarianism.
Genda