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"."
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
#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
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
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.
This content added to avoid "lameness."
Nice try.
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
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:
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.
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
Hey! If Rush says it's not true, then it's not true! WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
Now watch this drive.
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'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
Listen, self censorship is not about anything being "pulled". It is about rather avoiding going into one case because of fear of the consequences. It is not a black and white issue. It can be fear of having your family shot or it could be fear of being called "unpatriotic" and having your boss yell at you. Evil dictatorships does very little censoring by going into radio stations with soldiers and shooting people. The main censorship is letting them know it CAN happen, and by that let them regulate themselves.
And of course this happens on different scales, from threats of violence to threats of uncomfy. Just ask the Dixie Chicks. They were smacked down so hard I'm sure other artists were discouraged from pulling a similar stunt.
I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
I think the Dixie Chicks are a bad example. They said things people didn't like and were boycotted. Of course, they didn't like being boycotted, but it is the rights of consumers (and radio stations) to not buy (in the case of radio stations, air) things. It's a bit different than the government threatening the Dixie Chicks to shut up.
Oh, like how someone has to watch what they say on /. so they don't get modded down?
s hi p
i on ary&va=censor&x=15&y=15
Like shit, if someone says something bad about the Unions or Socialism or Windows, or Macs or pick one, you can get smacked down so hard as to be discouraged from pulling a similar stunt.
Actually, censorship is something pulled at an offical level, so I have to agree with the other poster that these stories aren't censored, but were underreported.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=censor
The act, process, or practice of censoring.
The office or authority of a Roman censor
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dict
One who supervises conduct and morals: as a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful
Not necessarily so. You are assuming that the only way to censor a concept is by the govt. to impose sanctions. The so called "majority public opinion" is also a great chimera. Were the Dixie Chicks opposed by the vast majority or by a vociferous minority? Was Disney's decision not to release Fahrenheit 9/11 not an act of censorship? Corporate Censorship is another diabolical form of govt. censorship. ``Profit'' is no more holier than ``the party line''.
That's a good point. Censorship, I believe by definition, is something that has to be done by a government or a large organization (like a church). If nobody buys your crappy book about aliens killing Kennedy, it's not being censored, just unappreciated.
So one of the Dixie Chicks made some short, and not very venemous comments, about Bush. The story would have died except for the fact that country radio stations repeatedly publicised the comments and aired tons of recorded phone calls trashing the Dixie Chicks as unpatriotic commies. Many of those stations are owned by Clear Channel, which is a huge supporter of the Bush administration.
-B
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:
.t error/index.html
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
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
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.
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.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
has to be done by a government or a large organization (like a church).
True. Now explain to me how Clear Channel doesn't count as a big organization.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
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
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.
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.