Top 25 Censored Stories of 2007

Vexorian writes "Is there direct or indirect censorship in the media towards delicate but important topics? Project censored lists 25 stories that did not seem to get the attention they deserved. Whether intentionally or not, for the most part the media skipped over these important topics. From the article: 'Throughout 2005 and 2006, a large underground debate raged regarding the future of the Internet. More recently referred to as network neutrality, the issue has become a tug of war with cable companies on the one hand and consumers and Internet service providers on the other. Yet despite important legislative proposals and Supreme Court decisions throughout 2005, the issue was almost completely ignored in the headlines until 2006.1 And, except for occasional coverage on CNBC's Kudlow & Kramer, mainstream television remains hands-off to this day'."

Comments

An important debating point

[Winckle]

Is it censorship if the mass media ignores it, or does it show that their viewing public don't care?

Re:An important debating point

[retrosteve]

Nice try, but that's just what the newspapers and TV stations will say when challenged. It's pretty obvious that it's a bogus line, at least sometimes.

Or do you really believe that people are more interested in Paris Hilton's jail term than in the president wiretapping them? Those Lindsay Lohan stories really must represent the public's true interest. Look! Look at the funny monkey! Look, Britney has no panties!

It's well known, for example, that Murdoch's affiliates receive "talking points" for the day showing them what stories they should promote. Affiliates who don't toe the line risk problems.

Re:An important debating point

[Ice Wewe]

Net neutrality isn't really a problem for every day consumers. I'm sure some of them that are tech savvy enough to understand it will care, but a majority of the people who just use the internet to check their email and the news don't care. If I even tried to explain net neutrality to my parents, they'd simply shake their heads and ask why we couldn't just get along. The media has to cover stories that their audience cares about. If they print something to complex for most of their target audience, people will become confused, and frustrated.

So, nerds unite, less large corporations stop grandmothers from looking at the latest Sierra Club newsletter.

Re:An important debating point

[Sunburnt]

Or do you really believe that people are more interested in Paris Hilton's jail term than in the president wiretapping them?

Absolutely. I've met plenty of these people. It's not a universal sentiment, but there seems to be enough of them to encourage news organizations to take the easy path of covering trashy gossip instead of doing investigative reporting. Sort of a "chicken and egg" issue.

Re:An important debating point

[__aaclcg7560]

The mass media doesn't report the news anymore. If the so called news isn't entertaining and doesn't fit the demographics for the ads, then its ignored. That's not censorship. That's the free market at work. The news -- like the truth -- is out there if you're willing to look for it. Don't expect the mass media to spoon feed you real news anymore.

BTW, Most of the stories in the list appeared in the NY Times. So much for censorship...

Re:An important debating point

[DrEldarion]

[quote]Or do you really believe that people are more interested in Paris Hilton's jail term than in the president wiretapping them?[/quote]

You're pretty blind if you think that's [i]not[/i] the case. The attitude people take with wiretapping is "bad guys will get caught, and people with nothing to hide will be fine." The attitude people take with celebrities is "HOLY SHIT! I need to know EVERYTHING that EVER happens to them!"

Re:An important debating point

[beadfulthings]

You may have a point. I just took it to Google Fight, where I entered the terms "Global Warming" and "Britney Spears." Global Warming seems to have won by 67,800,000 results to Britney's 31,500,000. It also beats out Paris Hilton by a somewhat smaller margin and Lindsay Lohan by a huge margin.

Re:An important debating point

[ngworekara]

Mass media has plenty on the line, as I'm sure everyone here knows. Print, television, and even some online media have shareholders with interests in what gets reported. Are they squashing stories and reporting others with a bias? Do we really have to ask that in 2007?
There is this lingering concept of a liberal slant as well, which is a matter of opinion, but Noam Chomsky makes a pretty good point in Manufacturing Consent that all media in the US is inherently right wing as it is part of the establishment, therefor having a reason to protect the status quo. There isn't really much of a counterbalance to be found to the main corporate news entities outside of the free weeklies in major cities, blogs, and miniature entities like Free Speech TV and Free Speech Radio News, and the market makes it such that most of the better writers don't end up there. Its capitalism at work. Don't know if this is a good or a bad thing, but the mechanics are pretty clear.

Now here is the part I'm going to get flamed for. I have been amazed at the over hyping of Hugo Chavez as a threat to the US over the last few years. Especially in light of other world leaders whose actions are far more undemocratic and who have gotten a pass, at least till lately (lookin at you Vladimir, you too George.) Chavez was picked in elections found to be free and transparent, yet he's portrayed as a dictator with intents on conquering the whole western hemisphere.

Now, what two industries has Hugo really been a threat to? Energy and communications. Biggest two contributors to US political parties. Intrinsically tied into our economy, undeniably related to the major media companies. I have seen no real dialog as to the possible benefits to the Venezuelan people as a result of the Venezuelan administration's decision to nationalize oil and communications. I don't necessarily agree with his decision to do so, however, I do believe that if he convinced the Venezuelan people to elect him and his party, twice, that an argument exists. It just isn't being portrayed in the media. Bush's tax cuts also spring to mind. The arguments against the tax cuts have received, IMO, much less time than the arguments for.

Focusing on Chavez will get me flamed, especially after dropping Chomsky's name, but there are plenty of other examples of a fiscal right wing bias existing in the media in the US. Not that anything is wrong with that, they have the right to, and would be irrational not to, represent their interests as businesses. People should just be wise enough to know what they're dealing with, when they're dealing with large publicly traded media conglomerates.

Re:An important debating point

[jd]

Censorship is not about Governments. Anybody can censor. Anybody at all. The film board that orders cuts is a corporate organization. Hell, each of us self-censors when we don't say what we mean. Censorship also does not mean cutting something out because of a political agenda, it merely means cutting something out. So, yes, this is censorship. But, then, so is absolutely everything else in life. Nothing is truly uncensored.

The next question is whether it matters to Americans. Well, if the media wanted to make something matter, it could. Very few people in this world truly pick and choose their own concerns. Their concerns are usually dictated by culture, religion, experience, popular opinion, manner of presentation, ad nausium. The individual is truly a very small part of the equation. Why do people still remember Jessica Lynch? Because she was significant? No. She was knocked unconscious in a car crash. There are probably hundreds of people who suffer that or worse every day on roads around the world. No, she's remembered because some people worked damn hard to make sure she was remembered - to the point of hiring a Hollywood director to perfect the footage.

Ok, then if these things could be made interesting and memorable, then why did nobody do so? Some are crackpot conspiracy theories, so no great surprise nobody gives a damn about those. Others are just more scandals and abuses of power that are no different from any of the other scandals and abuses of power that have been taking place. Nothing new there. There were a few - a very few - stories of genuine concern and those have been covered extensively by foreign news services. Personally, everyone I know in the States listens to the BBC and a few read German newspapers online as well.

So what we end up with is this: Yes, a few important news items didn't get covered by the American media when they should have been. Too bad. They were covered by other media, so any ignorance that exists is ignorance by choice. Nobody made you watch Fox' Fair and Mentally Unbalanced News. Nobody compelled you to only tune into CNN. Yes, I do blame the American media for not being informative enough and for limiting news that could undermine their sponsorship. However, if the majority wanted PBS to rival the major networks, it would have happened by now. There's no such desire. People have voted with their pockets for what exists, and if what exists is crap, then don't blame the commercial networks for being commercial.

Of course, in this day and age, why are people so bothered about the mainstream outlets anyway? If you've a laptop, a car and a good camera with something similar to steadicam, then be your own freelance journalist. Most of those who go to high-risk parts of Iraq are freelance. So you won't get to go to press conferences, because you're not backed by the right people. So? Nobody learns anything useful from those anyway. The real nitty-gritty is never the stuff the press is allowed first access to, so who cares? If all you want are the PR stunts, then you're reporting nothing new.

That, to me, is where the crux of the matter lies. People like to complain. The English complain about the weather, the Americans about the news. But nobody wants to do anything about it. If they could and did, that would remove the only real conversation piece they had.

Re:An important debating point

[Anonymous Coward]

"Or do you really believe that people are more interested in Paris Hilton's jail term than in the president wiretapping them?"

People would be more interested in the president wiretapping them if either a) they had rudimentary knowledge of human history and its implications or b) the news media presented the information seriously.

The chances of the first happening in America is slim. We have "it can't happen here" syndrome, believing our rulers are somehow different from all others throughout recorded history.

The chances of the second happening depend on it coinciding with the news networks' interests. Unfortunately, the news networks are giant multinationals with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo while keeping the audience dazzled. As long as the rulers don't get too uppity, as long as the rulers don't threaten the information cartel, the major networks have no reason to rock the boat (and threaten their advertising revenue).

Paris Hilton's jail term makes good news in America, because it does maintain the status quo. It has no real relevance to anything important, but at the same time, it can be spun (like any news can be) to appear exciting and relevant.

You are right that wiretapping would be a major story if the networks decided to treat it as one. But why should they, when it has no effect on the networks themselves? If anything, authoritarianism and lack of competition is what they want. A country where all media outlets are strictly regulated and licensed would be a dream to them, just making it harder for anyone new to enter the business. A country of wiretapping, secret police, "disappearing" suspects -- this is where we are heading, and that's all to the benefit of the people who have money and power. Why would they give this up, especially when their stranglehold is already threatened by the age of free internet discourse?

Re:An important debating point

[Jshadias]

It isn't censorship. It's a combination of the apathy and ignorance of viewers, and the apathy and irresponsibility of the media.

Re:An important debating point

[maxume]

Lindsay Lohan has way bigger tits than Global Warming.

Happy 21st!

Re:An important debating point

[maxume]

Accepting your characterization of censorship, government preventing something from being said is still much more of a concern than a citizen choosing not to say it.

Ignoring the distinction is foolish.

Re:An important debating point

[WormholeFiend]

The news -- like the truth -- is out there if you're willing to look for it.

But that would require effort well beyond that of tv channel surfing.

Re:An important debating point

[postbigbang]

...People should be wise enough to know what they're dealing with.....

These sources of information, biased as they are, are now difficult to believe. In this world where we have unbelievably enhanced communication (compared to even 50 years ago), one would want to believe *someone*. It's very difficult to do. There are some organizations that try to keep track of political lies, and media spins (MediaMatters.Org comes to mind, although they seem largely focused on monitoring a perceived 'right wing' composite).

The list of censored items is simply harrowing... frightening, and there were even a few on the list that a researcher like me were unaware of.

The local Gannett-owned newspaper where I come from are lap-dog sycophants of local business, and the well-funded politicians (by the same local business and regional interests). They are rarely believable, get their facts wrong, and have a rich-white-boy way of looking at real problems, like local pollution problems, crime, and tax money pissed away down ratholes-- with glee.

There is an establishment..... something in the middle.... and an anti-establishment. I think the Noam Chomsky/Vonnegut/WEB Dubois way of looking at things has some merit, but I've read all of the aforementioned and know that most people haven't. It makes me the eternal skeptic..... and I'm often rewarded; I want to be trusting but the controlled media lies like rugs.

Re:An important debating point

[Anonymous Coward]

That's no combination. Which is more likely:

1) The attitudes of media and viewers are completely unrelated.
2) Media is irresponsible because viewers are ignorant.
3) Viewers are ignorant because the media are irresponsible.

Re:An important debating point

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting; there appears to be a concerted stream of metamoderation abuse in this thread, trying to erase the upmods of posts like yours... almost like... censorship. :)

Re:An important debating point

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is [b]not[/b] a phpBB site. so there

Re:An important debating point

[jcgf]

Yeah, not to mention a tighter, sweeter smelling snatch. That Global Warming really gets around and doesn't have the best hygiene. Though I dated Lindsay before she became famous and Global Warming after the greenpeace movement kinda died down and she was on the rebound, so that might have had something to do with it.

Re:An important debating point

[Anonymous Coward]

Question on the show are you smarter than a 5th grader:
"What country is also a continent?"

Answer given: Europe.

This is why America sucks. People think that's funny instead of sad.

Re:An important debating point

[liteswitchrave]

The problem relates to the nature of our society. Most people have too many worries in their own microcosm to care about what Halliburton sold to Iran. People who are freelance journalists have to leave all that behind to do so. They are also passionate in what they do, and can be to a fault. It's no secret that the media is censored. However, it's censored for a reason. Just as so many real and terrible stories are censored, just as many terrible stories are made up and put out there on internet news sites. How many people are going to spend time debunking an internet news site that gets maybe a hundred hits a day? Real, terrible stories are put out there every day. How many of you heard the report from 5/25 that stated Bush was well-informed about the dangers of invading Iraq and that Al-Qaeda's next strategy would simply be to focus on Afghanistan while we're spread too thin in Baghdad? That was on a public radio station that has traffic updates every eight minutes at rush hour -- in other words, heard by thousands of people in my area on their way home. Was there a huge outcry? No, in fact, I just spent far too much time hearing about Rosie O'Donnell's exit from the view. Who gives a shit? Like it or not, this is the fault of you, me, and every other schmuck who didn't fight for freedom of the press. And that's regardless of whether one story on that page is true.

Re:An important debating point

[Sanat]

I was going to moderate your post down but unfortunately I ran out of moderation points.

Re:An important debating point

[mrbluze]

does it show that their viewing public don't care?

If they don't care about the censored topics as listed in TFA, then presumably the viewing public also don't care about everything else that has been published on those topics. In which case, presumably, nobody is watching the news at all (nor the adverts that go with it). Somehow what you say doesn't make any sense at all.

Re:An important debating point

[camperslo]

Is it censorship if the mass media ignores it, or does it show that their viewing public don't care?

It goes beyond censorship. There is also disinformation.
I've seen multiple news stories about the dangers of WiFi. What's happening is similar to the misinformation spread for years to cast doubts about the validity of global warming.

Recent coverage I've seen showed WiFi as a culprit for identifty theft, stolen credit card info in particular.

A woman "victim" was shown.

There was NO indication that anyone locally had exploited her wireless in anyway.

There was NO mention of where here credit card number was used, or any sign of researching what actually happened.

There was NO mention that even on open wireless, normal browser handling of online transactions encrypts the traffic.

There was NO mention of the widespread problems from Malware and phishing scams, and those being a far more likely way of her information being compromised.

There was NO mention of the fairly common incidence of information being compromised while supposedly under the control of vendors (retailers and other institutions)

There was NO mention of the postive potential uses for open wireless, such as making phone calls essentially free by avoiding use of cellular networks. (There was No mention of the possibility of coming cell phones, such use the Apple iPhone, potentially offering VOIP over wireless as an alternative to cellular use, since the hardware needed to do that is all in the phone)

There was NO mention of the more likely abuses of open wireless abusing it for accessing things that can't be legally shared/downloaded. (obviously there was no help provided in detecting/dealing with that)

It's hard to tell why such misleading coverage was broadcast since there are multiple possibilities. Telcos and cable companies alike are not wanting to see essentially free VoIP access if it competes with something they offer. Where I am, the are also local ads for PC dealers that'll "fix" wireless installations.

It seems that many local broadcasters lack insight in their programming choices. At at time when they could be growing their direct local audience through multiple channels of programming broadcasting something desirable (suitable for PVR capture) at all hours, they continue to alienate viewers by running many hours of infomercials.

Coverage designed not to go against any revenue stream is self-censoring by design.
One of the largest problems we face with corruption in our political system starts with politicians selling out in order to get money for campaign spending. While the corruption itself gets coverage, some key things are left out of the analysis. If broadcasters has to provide ONLY FREE political airtime, as trustees of the public interest should be doing, politicians would not have such a great need to get money from all the wrong places to get elected. I've only seen mention of this on PBS. Commercial TV won't touch it.

Re:An important debating point

[GrumpySimon]

Part of reporting the news involves reporting *why* people should be interested in the news. Any good story about net neutrality would tell the reader/viewer why it was such an important issue to show them why they should give a damn.

Re:An important debating point

[ResidntGeek]

Easy path? I guess you don't know too many journalists, then. I've never, ever, heard of someone who studied journalism so they could report on well-known sluts and worthless B-list movie stars. I don't think it'd be too far off the mark to say every single reporter in the world would prefer to be Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein than the anonymous photographer who caught Lohan's nipple on camera back in 2004 (anyone remember that one? No. Not even the fansite that first got a copy of the picture does).

Re:An important debating point

[mrbluze]

It isn't censorship. It's a combination of the apathy and ignorance of viewers, and the apathy and irresponsibility of the media.

That the World Bank funds the Israeli wall is kind of a big one to miss (#9), given that such a wall has nothing to do with helping poverty stricken countries and given that the World Bank has been run by a Republican appointee. That Halliburton sells nuclear tech to Iran (#2) KIND OF means something to people when they choose whether or not to vote Republican next election, given that Cheney is making bucketloads of money from this (#24).

I'm not saying people should vote either way - but these news stories are real scandals that could easily topple governments if they came to the full view of the public.

The issue is that, although more and more of computer literate people can read about this on the net (if they know where to look), politicians choose to ignore anything that isn't on the mainstream media machine. The mainstream media machine is owned and operated by companies who clearly have the power to topple governments (and choose not to do so by underreporting such scandals). This simply shows who plays the tune that politicians dance to.

Re:An important debating point

[Anonymous Coward]

What is presented as 'world' news on such networks as BBC (Britain) and Deutsche Welle [German Waves] (Eng. version, Germany), it seems that these networks actually present stories about what is going on around the world. When you watch ABC 'World' News, you have to wonder why they call it 'world' news when the only news stories they cover are exclusively American! The only way they can justify the news they cover as world news might be if something else somewhere else involves Americans or America. For example, American troops are overseas in Iraq, the Chinese are building a military (threat to America), etc.
First of all, I have to question this strategy as very deceptive. In addition, this comes across as very arrogant and paints a picture of Americans that we don't care anything about the rest of the world and/or what's going on in it. As an intelligent person born, raised and living in America, we are not this ignorant and do care about what else goes on in the world. If it wasn't for the Internet and the presence of world news online, this country would truly become the isolationist icon that someone, somewhere for some reason wants it to. I don't think that state control of the media is any worse than the control that's enjoyed over American media. Now, if you go to ABC News online http://www.abcnews.com/, you get a different story. Suddenly, there's the world news from an American media outlet. Why don't they show more of this on the nightly news broadcast like the rest of the world does?
----
So what we end up with is this: Yes, a few important news items didn't get covered by the American media when they should have been. Too bad. They were covered by other media, so any ignorance that exists is ignorance by choice.
----
It seems that what you're saying here is that we can go to other media outlets to learn of world news. This is true and necessary. However, I would have to point out that American media is controlled by forces far worse than the state. That force is one of power, money and greed.

Re:An important debating point

[Sunburnt]

Easy path? I guess you don't know too many journalists, then[...]I don't think it'd be too far off the mark to say every single reporter in the world would prefer to be Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein than the anonymous photographer who caught Lohan's nipple on camera back in 2004

I'm sure every journo entertains fantasies of being an ace investigative reporter - the couple I've had the pleasure of knowing certainly do - but the fact of the matter is that it's really hard to actually be that person. The entertainment-focused nature of the media limits the number of these positions available, while journalism students are a buck-a-dozen at many universities. As a result, most reporters aren't smart enough, ambitious enough, sociable enough, or some combination of the three to compete for the these top spots. (This isn't meant as a slight against them. It's the same situation that exists in professional sports: plenty of excellent athletes are simply not skilled enough to play at the top level of their sport, because that level consists of a few hundred guys, chosen from across the world or country.) Even those with sufficient talent may not have enough luck to exclusively catch a truly memorable or history-making story.

On the other hand, one can always get paid for celebrity trash. It's a shitty way to make a living, but its easier than "sticking to principle," if one considers not eating a difficulty. Besides, I have a hard time believing that some hacks really do enjoy their work.

Re:An important debating point

[Planesdragon]

So, why should we give a damn?

Re:An important debating point

[ArcherB]

"Big media's" choosing not to report these stories, it has nothing to do with any deals they have set up with men in black, but them wanting to protect whatever credibility they have left. Trust me, if any main stream media outlet thought any of these larger stories had any shred of truth in them, they would have pounced all over it. Watergate, Monicagate and even Dan Rather's Memogate should be prove enough that media outlets have no problems trying to take down the big guys.

The reason you don't hear about these stories is because they can not be corroborated. Of course, the main reason that they can not be corroborated is that are more than likely false. I'm sure there may be some truth to some of them, but the ones you mentioned are most certainly BS.

You mentioned #24 and I think it is a fine example: #24 Cheney's Halliburton Stock Rose Over 3000 Percent Last Year

Great story, except Cheney does not work for Halliburton any more and is therefor, not on Halliburton's payroll. I mean, in seven years of public tax statements, don't you think that some gumshoe reporter would have noticed Cheney reporting Halliburton on his income taxes? As for Cheney's stock portfolio, Cheney doesn't even know what he is invested in. It is called a blind trust. No one knows where his investments lie. More than likely, something very safe and stable. More than likely something that will not come back and bite him in the ass later.

As for #2, Jason Leopold is the same guy who said that Karl Rove was indictment in 2006. He is now the senior editor of truthout.org, which reads very much like prisonplanet.org. This guy seems to be about as credible as Art Bell when it comes to reporting the facts.

As for the rest... well lets just say this story has no credibility. I find it sad that slashdotters just assume that all these stories much be true. Otherwise, why were they "censored"?

Re:An important debating point

[mrbluze]

Maybe their examples are sensational and selective and biased and possibly totally untrue, but that doesn't change the fact that it's uhm.. entertaining.. like all of news and media!

Re:An important debating point

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Nice try, but that's just what the newspapers and TV stations will say when challenged. It's pretty obvious that it's a bogus line, at least sometimes.

Can you please provide some corroboration to this statement?

It's well known, for example, that Murdoch's affiliates receive "talking points" for the day showing them what stories they should promote. Affiliates who don't toe the line risk problems.

I understand this, given that he owns Fox News, but my impression is that Fox News is an outlier in this regard.

Re:An important debating point

[that this is not und]

Because, without net neutrality, you will only be able to download the porn that your Big Monolythic Internet Provider deems suitable. It will balkanize the porn industry!

Re:An important debating point

[that this is not und]

If you look back in history, newspapers have always been scrappy corrupt sources of news. There was no 'golden age' of newspapers when they were non-aligned and diligent providers of 'the truth.'

Re:An important debating point

[that this is not und]

Telcos and cable companies alike are not wanting to see essentially free VoIP access if it competes with something they offer.

You won't want that, either. If and when everybody switched over to VoIP on your much vaunted WiFi 'mesh' it would immediately saturate the net. You wouldn't be able to reach slashdot.org any longer to complain about things. WiFi won't scale to everybody's kid sister talking to her friend for hours, at least not without radical changes. It's not a panacea.

Re:An important debating point

[jehdro]

So we want to stop the ones who want a rock to tie a piece of string around, but you're saying that maybe EVERYBODY wants a rock to tie a piece of string around?

Re:An important debating point

[beyondkaoru]

it seems that a lot of people are perfectly fine with the government wiretapping them, saying "if i'm not doing anything wrong, why should i mind?"

tell them that unencrypted data across the internet can be read by his isp and/or the government, they'll either say it's implausible/absurd, or that they don't mind and it's perfectly within their rights to do so, and anyone who would use encryption for anything other than bank data must be a crook of some sort. perhaps it stems from various shows and movies showing law enforcement tapping phones and using sophisticated (and unrealistic) software to track things.

i know i'm a more-paranoid-than-most person when it comes to security, but jeez, some people need to change their views on things in a harsher online world.

they don't have to be the clueless unintelligent sort of person who's distractable by american idol -- smart people can be ignorant about these things, and very obstinant in their opinion (sometimes maybe because they're smart and used to being right).

Re:An important debating point

[localman]

I think the accepted use of censorship is censorship by authority. Me only telling the interesting parts of my life in my blog isn't censorship by most standards. And really, government censorship is what people usually worry about because the government can mess up your life a lot worse if they don't like what you're saying than most corporations can.

Re:An important debating point

[adarklite]

Every media outlet Fox, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, etc. Has its own agenda. To believe otherwise is just foolhardy. The only problem was that the Right felt misrepresented in the media and so Fox News became a bastion for them. Same as the CNN is a bastion for the left. Personally I can't stand either though the blunt spoken O'Reilly is hilarious to listen to every once in a while. That is the problem with creating a vacuum, something fills it. If the media had done their job properly and represented both sides instead of trying to control public opinion we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. And personally I blame Political Correctness for the fact that a lot of issues weren't represented in the media properly. Celebrities have always been easy, not to mention safe, targets.

Re:An important debating point

[Thangodin]

Net neutrality actually discourages the main providers from building more infrastructure, and instead allows them to charge more for existing infrastructure. Indeed, it will encourage them to create artificial shortages so that they can increase their prices. Many services, like online games, search engines, and free academic sites, will become difficult or impossible to access. Indeed, online games would probably become unworkable without net neutrality. What you will be able to access is a few highly successful commercial sites--mainly PORN, and lots of it, because porn sites can afford to pay the premium prices to expedite their packets.

Of course, not all information will be hard to access. Those who have the money to pay for extra bandwidth will have no problem getting their message out to the public. We will all rest easier knowing that Rupert Murdoch and rich Saudi extremists will be able to buy the internet at last.

Re:An important debating point

[darthdavid]

CNN is not a bastion for the left. Depending on the specific show and the issue I've seen them range from mildly left to moderately right. There was no fucking vacuum and the mainstream media has never, ever been fucking liberal. Fox news was created because a Murdoch decided that reality wasn't his cup of tea and wanted someplace where his brand of crackpot pseudo-fascism would be taken as gospel.CNN only appears left-wing because anything short of state media from the mouth of a fascist police state looks liberal by comparison to that steaming pile of feces masquerading as a news source. Most big stations are to the right of center, at least slightly, because they're owned by big multi-nationals and conservatism is in their ultimate interest.

Re:An important debating point

[NurseMaximum]

The English complain about the weather, the Americans about the news. But nobody wants to do anything about it.

To be fair, with global warming, we're doing our best to sort out the weather.

That seemed the easiest of the two to take on.

Re:An important debating point

[Anonymous Coward]

The chances of the second happening depend on it coinciding with the news networks' interests. Unfortunately, the news networks are giant multinationals with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo while keeping the audience dazzled. As long as the rulers don't get too uppity, as long as the rulers don't threaten the information cartel, the major networks have no reason to rock the boat (and threaten their advertising revenue). And, by not publishing critical stories, politics becomes liable to 'extortion' from the news networks.

Re:An important debating point

[Admiral Ag]

The institutional media simply cannot tell the truth about certain things. If they did, there would be a revolution in short order.

Can you imagine CNN reporting thus: "Today President Bush attempted to link Al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein - this is a lie aimed at persuading Americans to support a war for oil/strategic dominance/etc."?

Yet this is the truth. Many people knew it at the time, and it was obviously correct, but you would never see this on a major network.

The media is part of the establishment. It's not a cabal of old white men who sit around deciding what the news will be, but a diffuse group of people with media power and similar interests. These are the people who tell us the way the world is. As individuals, we live in a very small world where we cannot verify most of the things we are told. Yet, we feel we must make sense of the world. Hence we turn to the media, who seem to know what "the general opinion" and "common sense" are.

So we get the old "the United States is a free country where any hardworking person can prosper" and "the United States government, while it makes mistakes, is always trying to do the decent thing" tropes. Think of all the "worldwide media events" that "everyone" watches, like Princess Diana's funeral (except it turns out that a hell of a lot of people ignored it). All of this is foisted upon us with the attempt of creating an imaginary community with imaginary norms.

Who actually believes this based on the evidence they gather outside of the media/industrial complex?

Nobody.

But who believes it nonetheless?

Most people.

Why?

Because the media gives the impression of a "common sense" point of view, such that if your own situation doesn't cohere with what they say, then it must be abnormal.

Unless you are a particularly strong willed person, you are not going to stand up for the evidence in front of your own eyes and the reasoning power of your own mind. But everyone knows on some level that the media never tells the whole truth, and never really deals with the real issues. That's because the societal myth they tell us doesn't pass fundamental tests of coherence. Even though your town is going through massive layoffs, everyone is better off than they were!!! Orwell would have been proud.

The point of 1984 is not that totalitarian state control of the media leads to false consciousness, but that control of the media by any minority leads to false consciousness.

The only possible way out of this is decentralised, participatory media. Fortunately, its hour is now at hand, and its effects are beginning to show. How many people who actively use the internet to get their information have not experienced the feeling that the political game played in the regular media is some sort of farce? In some respects I have always felt like this, but with the internet and my expanded access to information, I simply cannot avoid the feeling that the media's portrayal of politics is a ridiculous charade.

Re:An important debating point

[Carewolf]

I think your comment need the text "The lack of" in the beginning before "Net neutrality" to actually make any sense. Net neutrality would forbid differentiated pricing, and thus not encourage it as your comment implies.

Re:An important debating point

[ngworekara]

One thing about what you said rings slightly untrue, it took major work to get the US Attorney firing scandal into the news. I watched the story develop for almost a month on TPM before seeing it on The News Hour on PBS. Two days later it finally got some mention on cable news. Was it because the story didn't have legs? Everything that they reported on The News Hour and CNN had been on TPM for almost a month. I don't think that the major media outlets are as interested in digging up a big scandal as everyone thinks. Its a risky thing to go after the government, you risk losing access, and the big ratings are in Anna Nicole. What if the public just doesn't give a shit? The story dies and you've burned bridges.
Look at the minor focus that the Dusty Foggo scandal received. In all likelyhood that was just the surface of the corruption, I honestly don't know why it got the scant coverage that it did. All kinds of conspiracies come to mind but who honestly knows?
Its not like this is new, Watergate took 2 years to solidify as a scandal in the minds of Americans. Many people don't remember this (myself included, age wise) but Nixon was re-elected as Watergate was coming to light! No one is in a hurry to piss off the White House.

Re:An important debating point

[zenkonami]

Sadly, I think the media's choice of dominant topics is much like that of the host of a party. If things get too politicized, they fear driving away someone in their audience. Since it's all about making the bucks, the media, like all forms of "entertainment" (which is what it's become) pitches to the lowest common denominator...particularly one that will offend the fewest people. If the worst anyone can say about a story (say, Paris Hilton) is "who cares", then they've done alright.

This same tragedy drives Hollywood, much of the mainstream music industry and other similar forums. If you can't unite most of your audience behind it, you are terrified to alienate them for fear that they won't return.

Re:An important debating point

[zenkonami]

It's well known, for example... is (no offense) a pretty typical bit of linguistic programming designed to include the reader/listener without providing supporting evidence, you know.

It's pretty obvious that it's a bogus line... is right in line with that as well. I think opinions should remain opinions, rather than suggested as facts without sources. This should not have received any mod points except as "troll."

Re:An important debating point

[Sumtingwong]

I love this stuff, these stories are exactly why Matt Damon, Matt Damon! movies sell so well. It seems that too many people just want to believe that they are being duped.

Re:An important debating point

[haraldm]

"bad guys will get caught, and people with nothing to hide will be fine."

The problem is that it's not they who decide if they've got something to hide, but often enough a poorly paid pen-pusher in some obscure police or secret service office. Depending on changes in the political landscape, supervision measures once meant for haunting "terrorists" may sooner or later be used against opposing citizens, or whatever said pen-pusher understands by "opposing". This is what most people simply don't get, and yet they are allowed to vote. This makes me sick. Like preventively collecting personal data just in case, as we now see it over here in Germany. Sick!

Re:An important debating point

[adarklite]

Its all relative to your beliefs and principles. Someone who is of the liberal left will see CNN as more fair even if they do not see themselves as a part liberal left. While someone who is of the conservative right, damn stupid to identify with right or left anyways, will see Fox News as more fair. The fact is that both have their own agendas. Which is what I was trying to point out in the beginning by the way. To say otherwise is naive. I hate watching the news because the stories are so pathetically spun to support this or that view on both sides!!! The only thing that is honest about news anymore are the pundits!! And if you don't believe me why do journalists support one politician over another when they claim to be neutral? And why are their stories always supportive of their decisions? Both sides use the media as a battle field and I'm sick of it.

Re:An important debating point

[aurispector]

/agree

I think it's fairly mundane issues that contribute here. Relatives of mine have worked for both Fox and CNN on their national broadcasts-fairly big time as it goes. Sticking to principle is fine, but there folks aren't independently wealthy and like their jobs. It's unreasonable to assume they would sacrifice careers to stickle for principle-after all they don't get to decide what airs anyway. Even the most amazing reporting goes unnoticed if it doesn't air. Besides, plenty of people are genuinely more interested in seeing nipples instead of quality reporting on Darfur.

Profit centered corporate ownership of the media does more to stifle reporting than the individual reporter.

Re:An important debating point

[hey!]

How do you stop eating so many bacon cheesburgers and more salad? You start liking salad more. How do start liking salad more? You start eating it more.

People's behavior is not linear. It's non-linear. There are many instances of positive feedback phenomena, so you can't use a simplistic cause/effect model. If people were given more information about civil rights curtailment, they'd be more interested. Right now it's foreign to their experience.

Re:An important debating point

[makomk]

ISTR reading somewhere that this is roughly how propaganda and news reporting worked in the USSR - people knew that there were food shortages and massive queues locally, but because it wasn't reported in the news they assumed it was just a local problem.

Re:An important debating point

[baboo_jackal]

the mainstream media has never, ever been fucking liberal.
Actually, it mostly does lean left.

Fox news was created because a Murdoch decided that reality wasn't his cup of tea and wanted someplace where his brand of crackpot pseudo-fascism would be taken as gospel.CNN only appears left-wing because anything short of state media from the mouth of a fascist police state looks liberal by comparison to that steaming pile of feces masquerading as a news source.
Jeez, guy. Tell us how you really feel. (and then count to ten and take some deep breaths...) (and then put on your tinfoil hat!)

Re:An important debating point

[SpringRevolt]

Nice try, but that's just what the newspapers and TV stations will say when challenged. It's pretty obvious that it's a bogus line, at least sometimes. Can you please provide some corroboration to this statement? Neccessary Illusions - Noam Chomsky

Re:An important debating point

[Anonymous Coward]

Government is heavily entangled in mass media, and you cannot simply toss out the consequences of that reality. If government is entangled in the business, then the business decisions must be influenced by government to some extent. There's no way they can't be -- common sense tells us that -- the question now is just how much.

Furthermore, what we have in the US today is not a capitalist (free market) economy -- not even close. Free market economics is defined by the lack of coercive interference (government) in the economy, not the presence of it.

Re:An important debating point

[ivano]

Isn't the answer Australia?

Re:An important debating point

[lymond01]

I realize the media will try to report on stories that sell, but isn't that why mainstream media is losing credibility? With the MTV 10 second info-spots on any topic from troops dying in Iraq to Paris Hilton's jail sentence, people are getting tired of news with no content. TV news is basically a series of headlines blurbed by the anchor. Even certain news websites are a full page, where the same paragraph is just written over and over (CNN comes to mind).

I don't expect the 11 PM news to have lots to say in the small time alotted them, but if they left out more of the tripe (infotainment) and spent some more time on investigative journalism (Abu Ghraib), they'd earn more respect.

Re:An important debating point

[Anonymous Coward]

you're fooling yourself, very badly, if you think that the public cares more about wiretaps over celebrity gossip. the mentality of "i have nothing to hide" is very wide spread.
 
i really wish you would look beyond the slashdot mentality and start looking at the world for what it is. the same kind of losers who think that joe sixpack is going to boycott sony because of drm are the same kinds of losers who are pushing stories like this and putting political spin in every possible post.
 
and frankly, it's old. joe sixpack doesn't care nor wants to hear from some raving tin foil hat every time some supposed violation of their rights has been committed. a majority of the time we find out that what is going on isn't what it appears to be and the tin foil hats end up not only looking like stooges but also start to proclaim that there is some deeper conspiracy! who the hell wants to listen to that noise?
 
step away from slashdot and hit the streets, you obviously don't see the world in the same eyes as joe sixpack. not to say that it's a bad thing but you obviously are not realistic about what the public wants to hear.

Re:An important debating point

[Scrameustache]

Is it censorship if the mass media ignores it, or does it show that their viewing public don't care? Is journalism a political power or just an advertising delivery business?

Re:An important debating point

[Hydrogen_NL]

The media can get the public to care about basically anything.

Re:An important debating point

[Yvanhoe]

We are in 2007, I don't care about mass medias anymore. Granted, most people still use newspapers and TV as their main information source but this is changing. Now, an information is either available or not. There are no "censorship by lack of visibility". Some website have more influence than others but this is not at the same scale than national TV broadcasting stations.

Re:An important debating point

[ivano]

I guess you didn't read the report. Most news report are defined as right of centre. The ACLU is called a right-wing organisation.

I love how the right shoot themselves in the foot all the time, trying to get a square plug into a round hole.

It's simple: news organisations are out to make money...and they'll do anything to raise the shares of their parents companies by 8/10 of a cent.

Re:An important debating point

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, you're not a leftist or anything, eh?
 
the reason the media doesn't seem liberal to you is because you're one of them (as in liberal). when the leftist media agrees with you, you see it as common sense instead of political spin.
 
you seem to have a very small mind that doesn't take the time to think these things through.

Re:An important debating point

[rizole]

That's right...I always wanted to be Chuck Norris but it turns out I'm the guy who fixes computers. I studied computers so I could be Chuck Norris but as I can't bust your sorry ass I'll be happy to fix your box.

Re:An important debating point

[arth1]

CNN is not a bastion for the left. Depending on the specific show and the issue I've seen them range from mildly left to moderately right.

I think the perception depends on your point of view and experience with different political systems.

Having lived in Europe for the first few decades of my life, and for the last decade having lived in the US, I have been subjected to quite a few more political varieties than the average American -- from the extreme left to the extreme right. From this point of view, I view CNN as ultra-conservative, BBC as moderate conservative, while Fox is downright brown.

Re:An important debating point

[sgt_doom]

But who believes it nonetheless? Most people.

Good points, Admiral Ag, but while I once thought that, I'm not quite so sure it is still "most people" anymore.

It is true, that few people pick up on the obvious: EVERY SINGLE TIME illegal wiretapping makes the "news" (however how peripheral - such as that latest congressional testimony of former acting A.G. James Comey) THEY roll out the immigration issue!!!

True, the corporate-controller MainStreamMedia will always obey their marching orders, and NEVER ask the next question: when those immigration marches are organized by Spanish-language radio stations --- WHO OWNS those radio stations??? [I am not concerned with the immigration issues and am not trying to go off-topic - just giving an example of obvious media manipulation.]

Many people ARE UNAWARE of how many reporters have been jailed during this Bush administration, as well as being unaware of the numbers of reporters arrested over in Iraq and how many of those Gitmo detainees are in actuality news reporters. There are still Americans unaware that in times past - as now in the present - a significant number of "journalists" were on the government's payroll and reporting doctored news. It takes a good deal of effort to continuously connect the dots: one day an article appears mentioning how the Busheviks have been financing the terrorist attacks within Iran by the terrorist group M.E.K. over the past year; another day an article appears detailing the Busheviks financing of a Pakistani-based terrorist group making raids into Iran; yet another day an article appears describing an unaccounted-for $1 billion a year going to Pakistan from the Busheviks and asking how much of that $1 billion ends up in the hands of al Qaeda???

I've read of $12 billion in hard currency shipped to - and unaccounted for - in Iraq and another $8.5 billion which can't be accounted for. $20.5 billion buys an awful lot of global terror, and this administration certainly appears to be leading the way on that front.....

Re:An important debating point

[baboo_jackal]

I guess you didn't read the report... The ACLU is called a right-wing organisation.
Apparently I read it more thoroughly that you did:

While most of these averages closely agree with the conventional wisdom, two cases seem somewhat anomalous. The first is the ACLU. The average score of legislators citing it was 49.8. Later, we shall provide reasons why it makes sense to define the political center at 50.1. This suggests that the ACLU, if anything is a right-leaning organization. The reason the ACLU has such a low score is that it opposed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill, and conservatives in Congress cited this often. In fact, slightly more than one-eight of all ACLU citations in Congress were due to one person alone, Mitch McConnell (R.-Kt.), perhaps the chief critic of McCain-Feingold. If we omit McConnell's citations, the ACLU's average score increases to 55.9.
Your accusation that I didn't read this is rather hypocritical. For example, you didn't even read the abstract! You said:

Most news report are defined as right of centre.
...and from the abstract:

Our results show a strong liberal bias.
Here's some more:

All of the news outlets except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center. Outlets such as the Washington Post, USA Today, NPR's Morning Edition, NBC's Nightly News and ABC's World News Tonight were moderately left. The most centrist outlets (but still left-leaning) by our measure were the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNN's NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABC's Good Morning America. Fox News' Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks' evening news broadcasts.
Anyways...

I love how the right shoot themselves in the foot all the time, trying to get a square plug into a round hole.
And I love how some people can blithely ignore facts and rational argument because it doesn't agree with their dogmatic worldview.

Re:An important debating point

[BlueStraggler]

Censorship also does not mean cutting something out because of a political agenda, it merely means cutting something out.

No, this is called editing. But thanks for the spin, Mr. Goebbels.

Re:An important debating point

[Scrameustache]

If I even tried to explain net neutrality to my parents, they'd simply shake their heads and ask why we couldn't just get along. Tell them that without it, regional internet monopolies can charge them more for their email to get to their recipients now, rather than later.

Re:An important debating point

[The Spoonman]

Or do you really believe that people are more interested in Paris Hilton's jail term than in the president wiretapping them?

Yes, I'm afraid I do. Worse yet, the people who think they're intellectually superior also pay no attention to really important points, and focus all of their attention on matters that are truly trivial in the grand scheme of things. For example, remember a couple of weeks back the big "number" meme? where everyone was so upset that Digg had removed the article about the HDDVD key from the front page? The whole Internet was flooded with stories and articles and t-shirts covering this stupid key, yet during that time we had the Republican debates during which FOUR of those on the stage raised their hands when asked the question "who of you don't believe in evolution?" Um, one of these idiots is going to be our next president unless someone starts paying attention to them. Think the south is going to vote for a woman or a black? Even the blacks aren't going to vote for Obama. The Dems are handing the presidency to the Pubs, and I for one don't welcome our jayzus-freak, anti-reality lovin' overlords. Thankfully Falwell's finally dead, but it might be too little too late.

Re:An important debating point

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you imagine CNN reporting thus: "Today President Bush attempted to link Al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein - this is a lie aimed at persuading Americans to support a war for oil/strategic dominance/etc."?

Yes, I can imagine that, because that "Bush lied" about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda is the dominant media meme.

Can you imagine that the whatever links exist between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein was not an invention of President Bush?

"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

-U.S. Indictment of Osama Bin Laden, 1998

"National-security adviser Sandy Berger suggested that the U.S. send just one U-2 flight, but the report says Clarke worried that even then, Pakistan's intelligence service would warn bin Laden that the U.S. was preparing for a bombing campaign. "Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad," Byron Clarke wrote in a February 11, 1999 e-mail to Berger. The report says that another National Security Council staffer also warned that 'Saddam Hussein wanted bin Laden in Baghdad.'"

-"Boogie to Baghdad"

"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers."

-CNN, February 13 1999

And since the title of this thread is "An important debating point," here's a summary for both sides:

http://qando.net/archives/003279.htm

Re:An important debating point

[myowntrueself]

Or do you really believe that people are more interested in Paris Hilton's jail term than in the president wiretapping them? Those Lindsay Lohan stories really must represent the public's true interest.

The true purpose of the media -- especially the 'news media' (more aptly termed 'news entertainment') -- is not to report public opinion but to shape public opinion.

As per my sig, the prevalent form of government in the 'western world' is media-cracy not demo-cracy.

Re:An important debating point

[myowntrueself]

it's the same situation that exists in professional sports: plenty of excellent athletes are simply not skilled enough to play at the top level of their sport, because that level consists of a few hundred guys, chosen from across the world or country.

Same in the music industry; I've often wondered how many female vocalists with excellent voices never make it because they are not drop-dead gorgeous. Apart from that chick in 'Everything but the Girl'... which was probably a quote from some music executive who said "I like the band, they are great, everything but the girl".

Re:An important debating point

[lsatenstein]

We Canadians see it as the dumbing down of America. Americans have stuck pacifiers in their mouths and have been overwhelmed by bullshit and lies to the point where they have forgotten to question what they are fed. And that includes NPR radio as well, whose funding would be cut if they reported the truth about the war in Iraq that has killed more Americans then the 911 disaster. I guess I am talking to the wind.

Re:An important debating point

[ccmay]

This is why America sucks. People think that's funny instead of sad.

Obviously, you have never seen the EU-flag bumper sticker that reads, "My country, Europe". They are common over there, and I've seen quite a few here also.

There are lots of government-fellating tranzis who would see 'Europe' as a perfectly acceptable answer to the question. By European standards, you are tagging yourself as a small-minded right-wing xenophobe if you object to this usage.

-ccm

Re:An important debating point

[Thangodin]

Doh, right. It was 2:00 AM and I was half asleep when I wrote it.

Re:An important debating point

[jd]

I completely agree with you that money and greed dominate what the commercial channels will show you in the States, and yes that we can turn to other news outlets. I guess my point goes a little further, though. If the majority of Americans did turn to news outlets in other countries, to fill in the gaps, people would become more aware and less easily swayed by corporate censorship. Maybe - and this is just a hope - sufficient awareness would blunt the impact and also blunt the profits.

Re:An important debating point

[jd]

We from the Free Countries call it "self-censorship". And I seriously doubt any spin-doctor (be they from the worst regime to the most enlightened) would be willing to associated with a geek who calls things for what they truly are.

Re:An important debating point

[gfxguy]

The point here, really, is that refusal of venue is not censorship. That you can read all of these stories unfettered and freely available on the web is proof that this yearly charade is very poorly named, and every year I have to remind slashdotters that the fact that the information is RIGHT THERE, just follow the link, proves that these stories haven't been censored.

"Censorship" is becoming one of those highly over-and-mis-used words (along with "torture" and "racism") that we've begun to lose site of what it really means to be censored.

A much better headline would be along the lines of "The Top 25 Stories You Probably Haven't Heard," but throw in a buzzword and get a lot more attention, apparently.

Re:An important debating point

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny that we're talking baout Hugo Chavez and censorship on a day when Chavez has performed a massive act of censorship and suppression of dissent.

I don't think there is going to be much benefit to the Venezuelan people from Chavez' slow slide into dictatorship. But I agree with you that he's not terribly threatening to the US, or to much of anyone aside from a chunk of the Venezuelan populace.

Re:An important debating point

[mpe]

If you look back in history, newspapers have always been scrappy corrupt sources of news. There was no 'golden age' of newspapers when they were non-aligned and diligent providers of 'the truth.'

But if you have enough of them (and they have different biases) you can probably get something resembling the truth by looking at a selection of them.

Re:An important debating point

[noigmn]

I think it's funny how much of this stuff the US is responsible for. Oil and global warming, destroying the amazon, helping spark wars in israel, starting wars in afganistan and iraq, encouraging Iran and North Korea to become nuclear powers, corrupting international agendas including undermining the integrity of the UN for political gain, undermining scientific integrity for political gain, undermining the integrity of any country who disagrees with them, being overrun by religious lunatics, the list goes on. All I can say is I send my deepest condolences and am glad I don't live there. Though here in Australia we just follow you so we aren't much better.

Re:An important debating point

[bastardblaster]

It's a little of both, depending on the story. The TV watching public does not care about net neutrality, internet users do; so it gets coverage all over the internet, but not on TV. Halliburton selling secrets to Iran is going to be more in the range of censorship, but overall i would not call most of these stories censored. If they truly were censored, they would not be posted here, or anywhere else. What i would call this article is pointless, as the people reading it already know about much of these stories. So if this censorship report doesn't make it into the news, is it censored?

Re:An important debating point

[ezeri]

Your hitting him with facts, thats so cruel. How is he going to keep his little box void of any reality if you keep shining the light down on him.

Re:An important debating point

[StikyPad]

I'm sure every journo entertains fantasies of being an ace investigative reporter - the couple I've had the pleasure of knowing certainly do - but the fact of the matter is that it's really hard to actually be that person.

Next you're going to tell me that starry-eyed criminal justice majors mostly turn into lawyers.

Re:An important debating point

[BakaHoushi]

I wouldn't say you're talking to the wind. It's just, those of us who DO question what we're fed, wonder what we're NOT being told, and truly want to learn the truth... What are our options? Where can I go that I won't be fed hand-picked drivel to try and sway my opinions? It's bad enough we've basically voting between clones, but where DO you go for real news?

When I see family members watching the news, I often get irritated and scream, "How can you WATCH this junk? This isn't news at all!" usually to responses of "Well, most people think real news is too depressing." (Yes, because ignoring the problem will make it better)

So, really, what now? Who do we trust? I could spend every waking hour fact checking news, but... I do wish to have some semblance of life OUTSIDE the news (well, if I had a life at all... theoretically).

Re:An important debating point

[Ikester8]

If people were given more information about civil rights curtailment, they'd be more interested. I hope so, but I honestly don't know, and won't know until the mass media actually begins reporting on what's really going on. I suspect, though, that most of them won't care much until they see their friends and relatives shipped off to Guantanamo, thanks to a couple of ill-considered emails. Meanwhile, those that care can plug in to phenomenal news resources on the Internet. It's there for everyone else, too.

Re:An important debating point

[ngworekara]

It seems there might be a bit more to this. Not even sure if anyone is still following this thread, but I would like to point out that the station that the poster above referenced was not shut down, per se, their license expired. It was not renewed by the Venezuelan government. I am not by any means intimate with the details of this, but the word on boingboing is that the station in question was responsible for encouraging a coup in 2002. In some people's opinion, the station not only called for a coup but staged footage to encourage violence.
That is illegal, one of the terms of their license is to abide by Venezuelan law.
I'm no fan of shutting down a dissenter's news station, but it seems quite reasonable, even by our own standards, to take measures against someone advocating armed overthrow of the government. Interestingly, the story you linked to doesn't mention the station's connection to the failed coup at all.

Re:An important debating point

[ngworekara]

Here is a better link to some opposing viewpoints: Venezuelan media crackdown: the other POV

Re:An important debating point

[moogle001]

I'm sorry, but measuring media bias based on the Americans for Democratic Action doesn't prove anything substantive about media bias. It is quite possible for a liberal organization to LOVE a particular news network because it is the most receptive to their viewpoints, but if that reception is "balanced" then it's still not bias. Furthermore, even if particular correspondents say they preferred Kerry to Bush, their opinions are fairly irrelevant in light of the media luminaries such as Brian Williams. Some of the other studies they cite are likewise ridiculous. According to the James Hamilton study (2004) mentioned, because conservatives speak out about more liberal bias than liberals speak out against conservative bias, there's a liberal bias? Or... conservatives simply complain more about perceived bias. The article calls this observation of bias "astute", while taking light that media bias wasn't the subject of the Hamilton study. Is this a sign of bias in the article?

Most of the media's bias against liberals is subtle, but persistent. It is more evident as personal attacks or ignoring certain issues, and most of the time liberals don't object too loudly or effectively, striking at the reliability of studies like this. Check out the Daily Howler. They're definitely a liberal group, and I don't agree with all their sentiments, but it's hard to deny the stuff they point out.

Re:An important debating point

[baboo_jackal]

Your hitting him with facts, thats so cruel. How is he going to keep his little box void of any reality if you keep shining the light down on him.
He he. True. People who ignore facts will continue to ignore facts, regardless of the content or context. Like Creationists, but with a different set of dogmatic "truths."

Re:An important debating point

[Floritard]

You're over-generalizing a little. Self-censorship is a misnomer. You're making a choice to filter out information that you don't find relevant to your life. No one else is affected by this action. Censorship in general, and particularly in the current discussion, is about limiting someone else's access to information. Removing their choice. As for whether anyone in modern America would actually make the choice to receive more important information about their world, well that's another more depressing matter entirely.

Re:An important debating point

[kjs3]

Or do you really believe that people are more interested in Paris Hilton's jail term than in the president wiretapping them?

Most people? Yes, I really believe that.

Re:An important debating point

[mrbluze]

Indeed you're right - mass media outlets stand to lose a lot if they go after governments. This is proof that they cannot report without fear or favor, wouldn't you agree? I think that journalists are keen to report scandals and sensational political news, because this is a path to promotion, all else being equal. Editors however are keen not to upset their benefactors. Several newspaper editors I have spoken to have recalled occasions when as soon as a news item reached their desk they got a phone call from officials of relevant agencies advising them not to publish the story - I kid you not. I'm sure this doesn't occur all that often, but fear is a big factor in selective publishing.

My feeling is that on certain topics editors are closely watched and stopped before they accidentally publish the wrong thing. Often things get reported in the press only once damage control plans are already in place and the outcome is predetermined. The recent Libby trial and surrounding background stories are a good example of this. Public coverage of the trial was rather uncritical and naive and I think we'll see the topic is shut out now that a single person has been sentenced for what was undoubtedly a crime committed by many.

In no way is this a blanket situation. Many heads roll in government, but history shows that heads of state only fall once their job is done - they are propped up while they serve a purpose.

I can't believe #1 is...

[Anonymous Coward]

**** *** *******! Do you believe that? I mean, really!

Dear Vexorian

[PHAEDRU5]

The rest of the world cares not at all about your concerns.

Pity, that.

Not worth reading...

[SoapBox17]

#18 Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story

Not that anyone here would RTFA anyways, but when I saw this I knew it wasn't worth my time.

God, I would like to file a bug report...

Re:Not worth reading...

[DogDude]

Why's that? Have you already decided what all of the facts are going to be, if they ever come out?

Re:Not worth reading...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I too was disappointed to see this story on the list, as this story and the professor who promulgated it was covered thoroughly here. So it never really was censored or ignored and doesn't belong on that list from that spect.

This story was covered, but once it was, it faded from view as it rightly should have IMHO. I personally think that islamo-fascists love this story, because it takes the eyes of the undisputed fact that Islamic fanatics drove two airplanes into the World Trade Centers.

It's a shame, because it casts a pall over the other stories on the page.

Re:Not worth reading...

[megaditto]

Sure, the towelhats may have flown the jets into the buildings, but cui bono?

Why don't you ask yourself for whose benefit it may have been done?

Re:Not worth reading...

[SoapBox17]

No, because its based on pseudo-science and conspiracy theories. It is to such a ridiculous level that aMaddox even covered it. You can find numerous refutations if you take 3 seconds to search.

Re:Not worth reading...

[iminplaya]

...because its based on pseudo-science...

Yeah, like evolution..But creationism is real science and should be taught as such in school.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Straif]

The fact they also reference the Lancet studies to back up their claims of unreported atrocities clearly shows the authors bias.

Many of their underreported stories are underreported simply because they can't find a second source to back up the claims made. Even in the most politically biased news rooms they like to cover themselves with some verifiable facts.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maddox is not a physicist, and I am guessing you aren't either. There is actually good reason to wish to conduct an investigation. To declair it a conspiracy... Perhaps extreme, but far, far too many things went wrong with the buildings and the series of events leading up to their fall to dismiss them as simple bureaucratic failure and lack of structural integrity. My guess is that you have not looked into either side of the arguments/facts about the events, but it is not reasonable to assume, based completely on science, that the buildings collapsed due to "weak floor joints" or "the heat of the jet fuel". As far as steel goes, jet fuel doesn't produce very hot temperatures and explosions like that don't last long enough to melt it. That stuff you see in movies when planes and cars explode, those are high-volume, high-powered explosives.

Re:Not worth reading...

[iminplaya]

...because it takes the eyes of the undisputed fact...

And who is exactly is the source of these "facts"?
"If the glove don't fit"...But you just knew he's guilty, right?
Did you ever suspect that Ollie North was/is a criminal before the Iran-Contra hearings?
"I was under medication when I made the decision not to burn the tapes." --Richard Nixon
Mmmm, Kool-Aid good, huh?

Re:Not worth reading...

[SoapBox17]

Maddox is not a physicist, but when something reaches that critical mass that even Maddox has to call it stupid, then you know it must really be pretty fucking stupid.

With respect to jet fuel, I'll quote you directly from the NIST page:

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

Re:Not worth reading...

[aurispector]

Yup...lost me there too. The whole thing stinks of conspiracy theorists. Hasn't ANYONE heard of Occams razor?

The main difficulty of the digital age seems to me to be determining the validity of the huge number of sources of information.

At least with congress it's easy-just follow the votes and you can tell who is paying the bills. When it comes to crackpot, truthy conspiracy theorists you just need to take a deep breath, hold it and let it out slowly.

Mind you, I'm not saying everything in the article is entirely bullshit, just that it's pretty obvious they have an axe to grind. You have to have some substance in order to slip in the red herrings.

When you look at the major media outlets you do need to take into account that big corporations own them, but that doesn't mean that martians control the world.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Sunburnt]

It's always a tough choice: examine the substance of someone's argument and respond with your own substantive points, or ignore it completely and make an irrelevant comparison to an unrelated issue. Good job on choosing the Slashdot Way!

Re:Not worth reading...

[Torvaun]

IANAP, but I have some training and hands on experience with structural integrity under adverse conditions. First, metal doesn't have to melt to be weakened. Blacksmiths do not reduce iron to a liquid, they ruin the structural integrity with heat, then use pressure to deform it. Steel columns could easily buckle under the given stresses.

Aluminum will melt at lower temperatures than iron or steel. Pooled and running metal was expected, but it was aluminum from the airplane. Also, if there was enough heat transmitted to steel beams without fire being present, it would start to oxidize. Combined with the molten aluminum, a thermite reaction could have started. That's not something I'd put money on, but it's too close for me to bet against it either.

As for the speed of the collapse, I have a friend who is a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. He's demonstrated to me the 'trick' to sending a fist or foot crashing through a stack of concrete slabs. You put a couple pencils between each slab to create a gap. This helps with showmanship, by making the stack look much taller than it is, and with physics, as you lose much less power per brick by enlisting gravity to pull the smashed bricks through the ones underneath. As such, it does not increase his total breaking time if he uses concrete instead of wood. Once the tower started to collapse, it was going to continue to do so, and it was not going to slow down because of the steel between the falling section and the ground.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what was in that tanker truck that burned under the I80/I580 interchange in Oakland last month, nor do I know it's relative energy capacity/flame temperature or whatnot. But, I suppose, to the conspiracy theorist, the fact that a burning truck took out a steel girder overpass that was above it doesn't mean jack - it was just a false flag operation to garner support for the story being fed by the uber-leet triumverate committee to...

damn. I can't even fake writing conspiracies.

Besides -- it was a bridge, not a "building" so the statement "No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire." right? Yeah. I thought so.

I don't suppose we can put this red herring to bed yet.

Re:Not worth reading...

[taoman1]

That is exactly when I stopped reading. You beat me to the post. Those theories have been debunked thoroughly.

Re:Not worth reading...

[iminplaya]

I've seen enough lies come from the government to consider them every bit as credible as the your conspiracy theorists. I don't believe the buildings were demolished, but there is no reason to believe the government's position either. With all the dirty dealing going on, there's every reason to believe that this was at least allowed to happen. None of you can prove that these guys weren't hired. And you certainly don't know by whom. You like to think all these suicide bombing are random. Well they're not. Every one of these guys have a mark, or specific target. Their methods are as crude as the Russian mob's. But like everything else you have to go with what works when your budget is limited. Tell you what. Let's sell them all our super accurate weapons so we can reduce the collateral damage. Would that make you feel better? Cause they sure aren't gonna stop fighting. May as well make a little more money, since it turns out the states is usually playing both sides a la Iran-Contra. Maybe you should check another under reported story about how the government gave back a bunch of laundered counterfeit money to the North Koreans in what ended up being a false hope that they would stop their nuclear work. What in the world is with you that you would think the Americans are any less crooked than any other tin pot dictator that they prop up? Good job on choosing the spoon fed Newscorp Way! Your attempts at distraction are boundless and unmatched by anybody on the planet. And lucky for all of you, they still work as well as they ever have. Because of that, you have two front runners that are worse than Bush. You're doing such a great job of making the world so safe for any American that dares step outside the border. You're all heart!

Re:Not worth reading...

[labnet]

I'm actually quite fascinated about the 911 conflicts, and I'm not sure why you thought 'it wasn't worth my time'

There are many conflicts in the story, and no one from the government is giving convincing answers.
Popular Mechanics attempts at debunking 911 alternative conspiracies have been meet by an extraordinary rebuttal by David Ray Griffins Debunking 9/11 debunking.

What is wrong with trying to put scientific method to 911?
For example, there are vidoes showing molten metal pouring out of a WTC building before its collapse.
Since jet fuel cannot melt steel what could cause it? So some scientists (Steven Jones) decided to use method.
Someone suggested it could be aluminium from the aircraft frame. So they melted Al, and poured it out, but it just looked silvery. Then they mixed in wood chips, carpet and other organic matter that may be found in an office. The organic matter just floated on top, and when poured out it just looked silvery, not 'sparky' like iron. Then they thought what could make molten iron? So they tried various thermite reactions and that gave results strikingly similar to that seen on videos.
They then started analysing wtc dust and found many iron micro spheres, and under X-EDS found the spheres had strong peaks for Aluminium, Iron and Sulfer, again pointing towards use of thermite.
you can read more here http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/J onesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
There are many things about 911 that still do not make sense, especially the symmetrical near free-fall collapse of WTC7.

Please don't be mislead by the many straw man attacks against 911 truth researchers. Its a classic tactic to attempt to put up some wacko theory like 'no planes', destroy that theory, and say 'see, they are all wacko'.

Re:Not worth reading...

[SoapBox17]

There are many conflicts in the story, and no one from the government is giving convincing answers.
You didn't provide any examples, so it is difficult for me to provide you with convincing answers... but have you considered the possibility that those from the government do not full understand the dynamics involved with a collapse of such a large building? Their lack of answers is simply a way of saying "Gee, we really don't know why it looks like molten metal is comming out of it." If they truely were innocent, wouldn't you expect them to not be able to answer these types of questions easily? Isn't it far more likely that if they had done this on purpose they would be able to EASILY point to answers for all of these questions? Is it more likely that they do not know the answers to some tough questions (and thus are spending a lot of money via NIST to find those answers) or that they planned the whole thing, killed thousands of people, and then forgot to consider that anyone would ask questions and they should be prepared with plausable sounding answers?

For example, there are vidoes showing molten metal pouring out of a WTC building before its collapse. Since jet fuel cannot melt steel what could cause it? So some scientists (Steven Jones) decided to use method. Someone suggested it could be aluminium from the aircraft frame. So they melted Al, and poured it out, but it just looked silvery. Then they mixed in wood chips, carpet and other organic matter that may be found in an office. The organic matter just floated on top, and when poured out it just looked silvery, not 'sparky' like iron. Then they thought what could make molten iron? So they tried various thermite reactions and that gave results strikingly similar to that seen on videos. They then started analysing wtc dust and found many iron micro spheres, and under X-EDS found the spheres had strong peaks for Aluminium, Iron and Sulfer, again pointing towards use of thermite. Unfortunately, this isn't quite the scientific method at work. See, they had a clear goal when doing these experiments not to find out "what looks like this" but to show that other things do not look this way. They didn't set out to discover what this metal looking stuff was and then found out it might be thermite. Instead, they said "that's thermite... lets show that its not aluminum and then people will believe us!"

What makes you think that NIST is unable to use the scientific method, anyways?

There are many things about 911 that still do not make sense, especially the symmetrical near free-fall collapse of WTC7.
Well, unfortunately the NIST report on WTC 7 isn't finalized. But here is a brief explanation (again from the NIST FAQ):

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

• An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
• Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
• Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Planesdragon]

None of you can prove that these guys weren't hired.

They were hired. By a guy named Osama. They were recruited, trained, paid, and directed by this man and his associates. When we invaded Afghanistan, we found records planning this very attack.

If you think this isn't what happened, kindly cough up at least ONE THING that supports your theory to the contrary.

Re:Not worth reading...

[TapeCutter]

I agree, have a look at what happens in an oil-rig fire, the steel rigs are reduced to a twisted pile metal. AFAIK the towers buckled because they did not have a "central column" (not because the "central column" had explosives strapped to it)....

Putting conspiracy crap like that on the same list as the world-wide collapse of fisheries says more about journalistic ignorance than it does about censorship.

Re:Not worth reading...

[iminplaya]

(Score:0, Troll)

WooHoo! The neo-con weekend warriors strike back! Oooo yeah That's the way, uh huh, uh huh, I like it. Yeah, gettin' that rhythm back, yeah...smooth baby. C'mon! Do a little dance, Make a little love, Get down tonight...C'mon! Hit me! YYYES! Make that noose tighter! And do it like you never have! OH! YEAH! Ooo LORDY! Put on that raincoat! There's gonna be showers tonight! Let's get this party started, started...We're goin' NUCLEAR!

Re:Not worth reading...

[Lehk228]

got any links to the actual molten metal? how can you identify molten metal as molten steel in videos from that far away anyways?

Re:Not worth reading...

[iminplaya]

Yeah? and who's Osama been working for for the last 25 years? And probably STILL is? Nothin' but a middleman he is. The general contractor responsible for gathering up the crew. Needed someone that speaks the language..and not gay (Heh, so they think). And Who was Saddam working for over roughly the exact same period? All the way up until the end? Witness protection is gonna work good for this guy. Nope, playing it smart this time Not going leave no tapes lying around like 72. These "Pentagon Papers" are being shredded AND burned, and the ashes buried at sea. Camper's Creed, Leave no trace. They got caught once. Not this time.

Re:Not worth reading...

[that this is not und]

There were some nerds up on a high floor of the WTC with a rather large wave soldering machine. They were producing clandestine telephone hacking equipment (the modern equivalent of blueboxes) and when the plane hit, the big tank of molten solder (there were 700 pounds of it in the wave solder machine) spilled over the side of the building.

Really a tragedy, as it was a really nice wave soldering machine, and let's see YOU try to get ahold of 700 pounds of 63/37 solder in bar form in this day and age.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Livius]

I was thinking I would try to learn more about these fascinating stories until I came to that one, and their credibilty was totally shot. Not reporting the demolition hoax is one of the rare moments of responsible journalism.

I want four minutes of my life back.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Sunburnt]

I think it's just wonderful that one can spin an entire story, without any substantiation, based solely on the well-known fact that the government is run by a bunch of shitheads. Let's follow this logic:

1. The government lies about everything.
2. Something happened.
3. Therefore, whatever the government says about that thing must be a lie.

Of course, the problem with using logical premises to make empirical determinations is that empirical reality doesn't lend itself to the generalizations of logic (statements using "all" or "everything," for example.)

But why let that stop you? If the existing physical evidence doesn't support your logical conclusions, just posit the non-existence of other evidence, more favorable to your conclusion, as support for your conclusion. That's the key to being a skillful conspiracy theorist.

Yet you shouldn't rely solely on logic to make your point. Don't forget a time-honored rhetorical device: inventing unwarranted (and inaccurate) assumptions about the beliefs of those who disagree with you. For example:

You like to think all these suicide bombing are random.

Let's sell them all our super accurate weapons so we can reduce the collateral damage. Would that make you feel better?

What in the world is with you that you would think the Americans are any less crooked than any other tin pot dictator that they prop up?

Your attempts at distraction are boundless and unmatched by anybody on the planet.

Good weed helps as well, for both writer and reader, and especially after midnight. When you need the motivation and paranoia required to type a page worth of non-sequiturs, or to appreciate reading it, nothing works better. So I hear.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Anonymous Coward]

link please? I never heard about this.

Re:Not worth reading...

[labnet]

The buildings were originally designed to take impact from a boeing 707. The damage should have caused an asymmetric collapse. The core columns were truly massive, and engineers have claimed the collapse should not have proceeded to ground floors because of the energy required to obliterate this massive steel core. Molten metal was found for weeks afterwards in the basement, by numerous witnesses, and NIST just dismisses the witness claims.

as for WTC7. It is not possible to wire a 47 storey building for demo in 8 hours, and the NIST report would have mentioned it, so the theory of FDNY wiring the building is not plausible.

Re:Not worth reading...

[iminplaya]

The Pentagon Papers and Iran-Contra never happened. Nope, not at all. Just a figment of my vivid imagination. Nor all of it before or since. The hostage deal is on paper. You can look it up yourself. I already saw it. I don't need to re-read it. Kinda funny how the same names pop up...since the 60s! Rumsfeld, Cheney. They were liars then too. But now they're all reformed an' stuff, huh? Yep, your government is nothing but little angels, wouldn't hurt a fly. A real stand up bunch you got. Except the democrats. They're teh evil(heh, actually they are, spineless SOBs, just like the republicans, BUT they all bring home the bacon) You're a good soldier, son. Keep the faith. They're countin' on ya there. That's all they got, and apparently you're more than willing. And it'll keep you off the no fly list. Don't be surprised when they shake down your kids though. They're the real terrorists. Even got a few of them of the list. With all the racket they make, and kicking the seats in front, they probably should be.

If you find some good weed, hook me up, would ya? It's been a bit dry here lately. THX

Re:Not worth reading...

[iminplaya]

(Score:0, Offtopic)

More! Dammit! I'm almost there! C'mon you wimp! What the hell's the matter witcha?! I don't feel a thing! I want my money back! Jeeze! Tom Foley's more exciting.

Re:Not worth reading...

[iminplaya]

100% Overrated

Yeah, now that's the chickenshit I like to smell in the morning. The truth must smell just as bad to you, you freak! But I'll let ya do me...if you move how to move without boring me to death! You weirdo.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they want to discredit some/all of the others, and so included one people 'knew' would make them disregard the list.

(Am I a conspiracy nut yet?)

Re:Not worth reading...

[asninn]

Occam's razor doesn't always give you the right answer, you know. It's a very valuable tool for determining whether a claim has merit when you have no other evidence for or against it, but you should realise that it's not perfect.

In other words: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but when extraordinary evidence exists, even extraordinary claims may well be the ones that you should accept as the most likely alternative.

I have no idea whether this actually applies here, of course, but what you're exhibiting is not an application of Occam's razor, it's cognitive dissonance: you have already formed a strong opinion on the topic, so you dismiss any claims that don't fit your opinion without even investigating them, and use Occam's razor to justify what you're doing.

It's a natural thing to do, but it's still not the right way to use Occam's razor.

Re:Not worth reading...

[F34nor]

Lets talk about cognitive dissonance for a second because it explains a hell of a lot more things about people then Occam's razor, and in case you don't realize it people and their opinion drive events more than logic, or physics, or the truth.

Cognitive dissonance is the dissonance between what you "believe" and what you do. When their is a difference your beliefs change to match your actions because it is easier to believe you are right then admit you did something that violated your beliefs. Now at this point you're either thinking "wow I never thought of that" or "well that doesn't apply to me because I am above being such a simple minded bitch" (your wrong if you're thinking the latter.)

The classic cognitive dissonance experiment is great. You have 100 people do a really boring job in a lab. When they are done you ask them to recruit for the experiment and you tell them you will pay them. Here is when the experiment begins. You pay half five dollars and you pay half 100 dollars. Everyone went out and told people that they should join the study and when they came back they were debriefed. Those who had gotten five dollars when asked about the study genuinely believed that it was interesting and helping science, those who were paid 100 dollars where like "hey man that was as boring as watching paint dry."

So what subjects can we cognitive dissonance as a tool to view that might work better than Occam's razor? I'd say just about anything that has anything to do with humans, their beliefs, their actions, or especially the things that really get them hot under the collar.

Some examples...

Cults: I just gave away my baby to a guy in a purple robe... I MUST BE RIGHT OR I'D BE A TOTAL FUCKING ABEOBA BRAINED AUTOMOTON!

Politics: I voted for a president who has wiped his ass with the constitution and was on vacation while my country was attacked for really the first time in history... HE MUST BE THE GREATEST MAN EVER AND THE MEDIA IS BEING MEAN TO HIM, I'LL VOTE FOR HIM AGAIN!

9/11: I just let my fears of strange bearded others allow me to let my government take away my rights and freedoms... BEARDED OTHERS ARE THE GREATEST THREAT TO MY FREEDOM EVER!

Re:Not worth reading...

[aurispector]

Oh, this is too rich. When I got my BA in Psychology, what I was taught about cognitive dissonance was NOTHING like what you describe. I would correct you but a) it's not worth my time and b) you are much funnier as an ignoramus.

Occam's razor simply states that the simplest explanation is the most likely. These morons are claiming all kinds of bullshit about preplanted explosive charges, massive conspiracy, orchestrated mass murder on the part of the government, etc. and other morons are eating it up like froot loops.

The SIMPLEST explaination is that jetliners slamming into the towers and the resulting fire caused the collapse. I don't need to concoct an idiotic story involving aliens, shadow government conspiracy, Elvis and the Illuminati to draw my conclusions. I'm only willing to waste so many neurons on fantasy. The "natural thing to do" is to apply some common sense, not waste my time on bogus "evidence". A few more years of experience under your belt any perhaps you too will have a functioning bullshit detector.

Go look up the definition for "sophomore" if you can figure out how to work a dictionary.

Re:Not worth reading...

[lysse]

Unfortunately, religious convictions run high on both sides of the issue; I once found myself being denounced as just another conspiracist for suggesting an almost-completely bizarre theory that I made clear I didn't even accept wholeheartedly - my accuser had stopped listening way before then.

We all believe what our continued happiness needs us to believe - for some of us it's that the government is out to get us all; for others it's that the authorities are primarily benevolent; for many it's that there's a God ultimately looking out for the world, no matter what befalls it; for me it's that scepticism should start at home and spread outwards in all directions - and we get upset when those beliefs are challenged, because we have so much built on them. But what you believe is really not that important, so long as you've got there yourself, and don't want to stop anyone else from doing the same; getting upset with conspiracy theorists is as silly as getting upset with those who accept the mainstream account.

What is worth getting upset about is someone's desire to impose their own beliefs on everyone else; that impulse has nothing to do with faith or reason.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Sunburnt]

The Pentagon Papers and Iran-Contra never happened. Nope, not at all.

Good thinking! "The government has a history of doing bad things, so whatever bad thing I suggest must be true, and anyone who objects must be brainwashed and ignorant."

Let me try one: I posit that the U.S. government will soon throw sniff out all the drug users and throw them into camps. This is based on the following:

1. At the government's encouragement, drug screening is now widespread in private industry and schools.
2. The government has a substantiated history of collecting supposedly private information.
3. Halliburton received a contract to build detention camps in the U.S.

Obviously, these camps are part the "final solution" to the War on Drugs. You might want to say, "Perhaps there's another reason for building them, like preparations for mass deportation of illegal immigrants," but anyone who says this is just brainwashed, man, by the corpo-fascist thugs and their dastardly agents of deceit. Prove me wrong.

Fun as this is, I'm going to have to give it a rest. Arguing with a conspiracy theorist is exactly like arguing with a creationist: no understanding is possible in the presence of such different standards of evidence. Once the need to search for answers in empirical reality is disposed of, anything's possible. The appeal of having certain Truths, in the face of a world that rejects them, is undeniable and has formed the basis of most cults throughout history. (Christianity, for example, in the days when Christians were persecuted by harsher means than the removal of government-mandated prayer.) Far be it from me to screw with your personal religion, but if it'll make you feel better to reply to this post by once again asserting that a person you don't know is a helpless tool of forces that only those with your secret knowledge understand, go right ahead. It's still a relatively free country.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Anonymous Coward]

You hear of Pat Tillman? What is easier to believe, that he died gloriously in battle, or that he was killed by his own troops and this friendly fire got swept under the rug? Just because you don't believe in conspiracies doesn't mean they don't happen. Remember the thing about trees falling in a forest...? I can't imagine the horrors you might go through seeing the world as it is--fucking complicated. Go look up "simpleton" in a dictionary.

P.S. Well spent education.

Re:Not worth reading...

[iminplaya]

(Score:0, Troll)

I'm in a very good mood. Pray to your god you never see me mad. Goddamn retard! You haven't BEGUN to see "Troll"! When you do, you'll be crying for a week! Dumbshit! Hiding behind your little moderator points because you're stupider than I am and can't think of anything to say. Have fun in your dreamland fascist utopia! Real karma is sneaking up to bite you on the ass real good. You let me know how life is in Hell, won't you? Or are you homesick, and trying to recreate your hell right here? Do us a favor and keep your personal problems to your damn self! The world's in bad enough shape without you crybabies muckin' it up with your spoiled little tantrums! Somebody really needs to slap you around a little bit... Whack the shit out of your tiny, little brain that's going so unused. Learn how to walk upright, and quit throwing your crap into the street for everybody to step in. You better hope the world never unites! Where's that cucumber? I wanna ram ya one more time!

Re:Not worth reading...

[iminplaya]

Like I said, believe what you want. I got history on my side. I don't know much, nor care about your silly theories. I'm dealing with simple animal psychology. 2 and 2 still equals 4 in my world. Don't know how it works with you kids and your new new math, but it seems to be messing with your brain.

Re:Not worth reading...

[radtea]

IANAP, but I have some training and hands on experience with structural integrity under adverse conditions. First, metal doesn't have to melt to be weakened. Blacksmiths do not reduce iron to a liquid, they ruin the structural integrity with heat, then use pressure to deform it. Steel columns could easily buckle under the given stresses.

Actually, no, they couldn't. That's the problem.

I am a physicist, and have worked with people who have worked with Steve Jones, who describe him as "a very careful guy."

The thing that distinguishes physicists from other people is that we believe, with Lord Kelvin, "when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of science, whatever the matter may be."

Jones is making some legitimate numerical points. It is a little unfortunate that he is mixing an alternative hypothesis in with his critique of the NIST analysis, because the two have nothing to do with each other. But the NIST analysis is clearly badly flawed. If you run the numbers, you find that fire alone is insufficient to raise the temperature of the structural members of any of the three towers to the levels required to cause collapse.

You also find that molten aluminum, even when contaminated with hydrocarbons, does not look like the streams of falling material that were seen.

You also find that the presence of cooled liquid metal, and metal that is still glowing yellow-hot in the debris some weeks later, is inexplicable given the energies available from the burning jet fuel or office materials.

These are all facts. They do not prove anything by themselves, except that we do not understand what happened to the Twin Towers or two WTC Building 7, which suffered a nearly symmetrical collapse after being heavily damaged on one side and burning for seven hours after the planes hit the adjacent towers.

So even though you can wave your hands and say, "It seems plausible that the steel might be weakened due to fire..." the undisputed fact is that when you behave as a scientist you find that the numbers don't add up. This is what we do, and this is what all the technology you use depends on. Remember, your GPS wouldn't work if 19th century astronomers had shrugged and said, "Well, it's true that the orbit or Mercury precesses at a higher-than-expected rate, but it's probably just due to some funny mass distribution in the sun. Ok, let's go for a beer."

Scientists do not quit until the numbers add up. There is no doubt that with regard to the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 on 9/11 the numbers do not add up.

Re:Not worth reading...

[sgt_doom]

Torvaun, while many black belts don't cheat the way your friend does, let's address the point you made and that is the weakness is the speed of collapse of the two towers and Building 7. It was far too steady state and far too fast for it be anything other than an artificially-induced event. That is the crucial point in all arguments - really, the melting point is really almost arbitrary.

Also, the suggestion that Atta cranked down his window aboard that 757 he was in and tossed out his passport - to be later "found" by the FBI is really a bit too much to stomach. Or was that passport indestructible?????

Re:Not worth reading...

[Scrameustache]

Yup...lost me there too. The whole thing stinks of conspiracy theorists. The official 9-11 story IS a conspiracy theory:
# a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
# a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
# a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Re:Not worth reading...

[Torvaun]

I have difficulty believing in conspiracy theories. I will always start with the assumption that things could be an accident, and then try to find how that could be. I realize that this is a scientific weakness of mine, but there it is. Bias exposed, here are more possibilities:
1) Some of the steel was substandard.
2) Given the ease of beating airport security, especially pre-9/11, some of the pieces of luggage were explosives or high-end incendiaries.
3) One of the more solid pieces of the airplane, probably an engine, was unlucky enough to rip through a major support or two.
4) Metal that's still glowing could be a metal that glows at a lower temperature.
5) Metal could have spent those weeks in an area that was remarkably well insulated, due to ash, or some of the fireproofing insulation that was present in the building.

I have not taken a serious look at the WTC collapse. I have not taken the time to look at more than a few numbers, nor have I engaged in any simulations. If the numbers you have seen do correspond to reality (i.e. 1 is not true), and those numbers all point to what you claim, then we must start looking to human intervention. Personally, I like number 2. We know the hijackers planned to die. We know that it would have been possible for a suitcase full of thermite or thermate to have gotten aboard, and that it's likely the hijackers would have taken these kinds of measures. And that would explain pretty much everything else.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Scrameustache]

The SIMPLEST explaination is that jetliners slamming into the towers and the resulting fire caused the collapse. Except that fire has never before or since caused the collapse of a steel-structure building.
And the third building to fall that day collapsed in it's own footprint, which no building has ever done spontaneously before or since.

But we are to believe that the laws of physics were suspended that day?
Congratulations on turning Occam's razor into a logical fallacy: The simplest explanation is not always the truth.

Re:Not worth reading...

[The One and Only]

Except that fire has never before or since caused the collapse of a steel-structure building.

And never before or since has a fully-fueled Boeing jetliner crashed into a high-rise building. That's like saying Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't happen because atom bombs have never before or since caused hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Scrameustache]

Except that fire has never before or since caused the collapse of a steel-structure building.

And never before or since has a fully-fueled Boeing jetliner crashed into a high-rise building.

The Windsor Tower Fire, Madrid

Overview
Location: Madrid, Spain
Fire Event: 12 February 2005
Fire started at the 21st Floor, spreading to all floors above the 2nd Floor. Fire duration: 18 ~ 20 hours
Fire Damage: Extensive slab collapse above the 17th Floor. The building was totally destroyed by the fire.
Construction Type: Reinforced concrete core with waffle slabs supported by internal RC columns and steel beams, with perimeter steel columns which were unprotected above the 17th Floor level at the time of the fire.

Notice that the floors above the exposed beams partially collapsed, but without bringing down the rest of the building like a house of cards.
And don't forget that the twin towers were engineered to resist airplane impacts:
Leslie Robertson, who had participated in the structural design of the towers, said that the towers had in fact been designed to withstand the impact of the largest airliner of the day, the Boeing 707-320, in the event one was lost in fog while looking to land.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology found a reference to a study of the effects of a Boeing 707 hitting the buildings at 600 mph, which would be faster than either of the two planes that hit on 9/11. In line with Skilling's remarks, this study apparently found that the buildings would not collapse in that event.

Re:Not worth reading...

[graffix_jones]

That's all fine and good, but how exactly do you explain the molten pools of steel that were present for several weeks after the collapse of the towers? Oh... you can't explain those? I didn't think so.
I know I'm burning Karma on this one, but I'm truly tired of hearing know-it-alls completely dismiss anyone who doesn't tow the party line when it comes to the explanation of what happened to all the WTC buildings.
I'm not a conspiracy nut, but something just doesn't feel right when it comes to the explanation of events on September 11... and believe me, I'm not alone out here.
So are you a Physicist, or did you just sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

Re:Not worth reading...

[iminplaya]

(Score:0, Troll)

Got a cigarette??

Re:Not worth reading...

[The One and Only]

The Windsor Tower Fire was not caused by aircraft impact, nor was it of comparable size (and thus weight) to the WTC.

Re:Not worth reading...

[TapeCutter]

"That's all fine and good, but how exactly do you explain the molten pools of steel"

You have that the wrong way around, the question(s) should be along the lines of:

1. Where is the (non-anecdotal) evidence that such "pools" existed?
2. How do we know the "pools" are made from steel and not some other common metal with a lower melt point, eg: tin or zinc?
3. Why do "molten pools" of metal imply "secret explosives" when a burning jumbo jet has been observed sticking out the side of the building?
4. By what mechanisim does the (theorised) explosive melt steel into a nice neat pool?????

"I know I'm burning Karma on this one, but I'm truly tired of hearing know-it-alls completely dismiss anyone who doesn't tow the party line when it comes to the explanation of what happened to all the WTC buildings."

BTW: "I'm truly tired of hearing know-it-alls" who fail to even question their own bat-shit ideas.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Lord Kano]

I work with metallurgists in a place where metals are subjected to all kinds of testing. You don't need to melt it to make it fail. If you get it hot enough, the crystalline structure will change enough to lose it's strength. If you've got hundreds of tons on steel beams that have lost their structural integrity, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the result will be.

I seek to remain an open-minded skeptic. So, I guess that it's possible that there was some 9-11 conspiracy, but no one has produced any proof of it.

LK

Re:Not worth reading...

[mpe]

Yup...lost me there too. The whole thing stinks of conspiracy theorists. Hasn't ANYONE heard of Occams razor?

You mean with things like "Iran is building nuclear weapons", "Iraq has WMDs", "Iraq is connected to Al-Quada", "Al-Quada" itself (as a global terrorist conspiracy).

Re:Not worth reading...

[mpe]

In other words: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but when extraordinary evidence exists, even extraordinary claims may well be the ones that you should accept as the most likely alternative.

What about an extraordinary claim which lacks extraordinary evidence but which is advocated by government and/or media? How about one where disagreement is likely to result in a prison sentence? Examples of these exist right now.

Re:Not worth reading...

[mpe]

The SIMPLEST explaination is that jetliners slamming into the towers and the resulting fire caused the collapse.

Only if you ignore the laws of physics...

I don't need to concoct an idiotic story involving aliens, shadow government conspiracy, Elvis and the Illuminati to draw my conclusions.

But stories involving "hijackers" who turn up alive after the event, documents which magically survive fire, baggage which just happened to not make it onto a plane, etc are not "idiotic".

The "natural thing to do" is to apply some common sense, not waste my time on bogus "evidence".

A great pity the US Government decided to to the exact opposite, in the process killing lots of people.

Re:Not worth reading...

[mpe]

And never before or since has a fully-fueled Boeing jetliner crashed into a high-rise building.

So presumably WTC7 was hit by an invisible airliner... For 3 building collapses you'd need 3 plane crashes.

Re:Not worth reading...

[mpe]

But we are to believe that the laws of physics were suspended that day?
Congratulations on turning Occam's razor into a logical fallacy: The simplest explanation is not always the truth.

Or that claimed "simplist" explanation isn't. The idea that terrorists (of unknown identity) planted explosives and arranged for the planes to be hijacked and crashed as a distraction (especially if flight 93 was intended for WTC7) is a rather "simpler" explanation than that the laws of physics were suspended over part of Manhatten for s few hours.

Re:Not worth reading...

[mpe]

I've seen enough lies come from the government to consider them every bit as credible as the your conspiracy theorists.

If anything a third party conspiracy theory is likely to be slightly credible than a conspiracy theory put out by the US Government. Unless that third party is also a habitual lier. Then the theory can be examined on it's own merits and how well it fits the facts.

Re:Not worth reading...

[mpe]

and who's Osama been working for for the last 25 years? And probably STILL is?

Possibly no one, considering that there are claims that he is dead. Together with a lack of any evidence that is is alive.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Scrameustache]

The Windsor Tower Fire was not caused by aircraft impact Tell me then what is so special about an airplane impact.
Technically, not psychologically.
And do read my other reply in there, before you say something stupid, I covered the heat insulation issue already.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Cervantes]

The SIMPLEST explaination is that jetliners slamming into the towers and the resulting fire caused the collapse.

The resulting fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel. The resulting fire possibly wasn't hot enough for long enough to significantly weaken the steel. So the simplest explanation may be the most obvious, but it doesn't match up to the simple facts.
While it is possible that it was all the fires fault, it's also possible it wasn't. The inquiry didn't bother to look into the possibilities, instead they made a model that worked with their predetermined ideas, claimed it as proof, all while quickly and quietly shipping every bit of WTC steel (aka evidence) they could to China to be melted down as scrap.
I'm entirely open to the idea that the entire thing was the result of the planes. But the most common argument against anything else is "Pfft, come on, they're nutcases!". Hardly a convincing scientific argument. The fact remains that there are questions unanswered, and the powers that be benefited greatly from 9/11. Whether they molded the aftermath of a tragedy to suit their desires, or whether they molded the tragedy itself, is still up in the air.

Re:Not worth reading...

[The One and Only]

Well, there's the impact shock, for one.

Re:Not worth reading...

[The One and Only]

And don't forget that the twin towers were engineered to resist airplane impacts

Yeah, and the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was engineered to resist wind. And it's clearly impossible that we didn't know enough about airline impacts at the time, so it must have been a secret government conspiracy.

Re:Not worth reading...

[The One and Only]

Well, WTC7 and most of the rest of the WTC had debris rained on it from the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. WTC 7 was evacuated since the collapse was anticipated, but that must have been part of the evil Masonic conspiracy too.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Scrameustache]

Well, there's the impact shock, for one. Which the twin towers were over engineered to withstand.

And the fact that a building collapsed that day without the plane impact.
watch the vid before you say the towers fell on it

Notice how the entire building, from floor to roof top, falls as one single entity? The top doesn't collapse on the lower floors, forcing them down in a domino effect. The building doesn't fracture, it folds in on it's own footprint in one fell swoop. The outer edges are even pulled in, away from the surrounding buildings.

This is what an out of control building collapse looks like. And that was a structurally-weakened building.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Scrameustache]

it's clearly impossible that we didn't know enough about airline impacts at the time, so it must have been a secret government conspiracy. You didn't follow the links on WTC7, which collapsed without a plane impact.
You are trolling, DIAF.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Scrameustache]

I have difficulty believing in conspiracy theories.
[...]
I have not taken a serious look at the WTC collapse.
[...]
We know the hijackers planned to die. We know that it would have been possible for a suitcase full of thermite or thermate to have gotten aboard, and that it's likely the hijackers would have taken these kinds of measures. And that would explain pretty much everything else. 1- You believe the theory that 19 guys conspired to take down 4 planes, and 25 new york buildings.
2- No shred of evidence exist for your theory of a conspiracy to smuggle explosives on planes on 9-11.
3- That doesn't explain everything.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Torvaun]

1- This is not a conspiracy. This was an overt hostile action, albeit one that was launched by surprise. I do not claim conspiracy in the attacks on Pearl Harbor, despite the fact that many more men were involved in that.

2- I am willing to accept that the plane crashes in and of themselves may not have been sufficient to cause the damage observed. This is part of not knowing the numbers. I merely suggest a different delivery mechanism for the explosives that are rumored to have been planted within the towers without anyone noticing. My way doesn't involve treason being committed by people who would probably rather not suffer the consequences of being caught. Treason holds a death penalty, and our government has shown a desire to avoid getting killed. The hijackers, on the other hand, embraced death as a necessary part of accomplishing their goal. My bombs have better odds than your bombs.

3- How lovely, almost two minutes worth of using the same tactics they're accusing everyone else of using. That video starts by introducing a bias, and then shows equivocal evidence in such a way that the bias is supported. We're given two photos, one with less damage than the other. Then, we're told that that means one of them must be lying, and it's obviously the one that disagrees with the video makers position. 1:40 just isn't long enough to mention that there may be a time differential between when the pictures were taken. It could even be a simple matter of perspective, where one picture is at an angle that conceals some of the damage. Then, having made the conspiracy self-evident, they simply mention that the collapse looks the same as a collapse from a controlled demolition, and the statement that it was caused by the plane then looks weak and vacuous. On the other hand, there are parallels to be drawn between the collapse as claimed to have occurred, and the collapse as would be expected with controlled demolition. First, and most importantly, the damage in both cases was and would be inflicted from the inside. A missile or a hurricane or an earthquake all induce damage from the exterior, which is the normal comparison to be had. I have seen buildings that have collapsed after being gutted with fire, and it is much the same. The internal structure is degraded, and the building just crumples. Both tails are trying to wag the dog here, and the whole circumstance has become bogged down by the same sort of crap that cluttered the JFK assassination. No one will ever know for sure what happened. Any attempt to sway the masses will require making the other side look like either fools or liars. And when you get right down to it, now that the event has occurred, how doesn't matter anymore. The VP took over, the US went to the Middle East again. Will either of us being right change anything now?

Re:Not worth reading...

[The One and Only]

You know, whoever designed the WTC must be pretty happy that you have so much faith in them that you think it's more plausible that reptilian Jewish Freemasons from the outer space Illuminati secretly planted explosives than they were simply more vulnerable to aircraft and debris collision than they hoped. Also, I'm not sure if you realize it, but a smallish tower with a poster on it that says "BOOM!" in the middle of bumfuck Alberta (or wherever) will collapse differently from explosives planted at the foundation than a 110-story skyscraper will collapse from airplane impact, or a 40-story skycraper will collapse from debris impact. Other WTC 7 videos show a progressive collapse.

Re:Not worth reading...

[dharbee]

"Actually, no, they couldn't. That's the problem."

So you're saying weakening the structural supports of a building couldn't result in those supports collapsing?

Why would anyone give you the time of day after making an obviously ridiculous claim like that.

Re:Not worth reading...

[dharbee]

I've alwyays wondered something, and you appear perfectly qualified to answer.

Are you aware that you're insane? I suspect most forms of insanity reduce the individuals ability to recognize that they are insane, is that true for you?

Re:Not worth reading...

[Scrameustache]

a 40-story skycraper will collapse from debris impact. There was no extensive debris impact.

Ya didn't read my link huh? "a building implosion is actually one of the most precisely planned, delicately balanced engineering feats you'll ever see."
And you think this one just... happened all by itself? By magic?

You think I hadn't seen that video of the "oh noes, center collapsed first, lol", or worse, that it doesn't show controlled implosion?
This one has an aerial view of the post-implosion debris, where you can see just how neatly it collapsed.

This one shows the neatly cut and melted support columns still standing in the debris!

Re:Not worth reading...

[Scrameustache]

My way doesn't involve treason being committed by people who would probably rather not suffer the consequences of being caught. Treason holds a death penalty, and our government has shown a desire to avoid getting killed.
[...]
the whole circumstance has become bogged down by the same sort of crap that cluttered the JFK assassination. No one will ever know for sure what happened. You don't believe they did it because it would be bad if they got caught. And then you flat out say that there is no way in hell they'll get caught.

Face it, you don't want to believe.
Not because of the facts, but because it is much more comfortable for you to think evil lies on the outside rather than on the inside.

P.S. Go read the definition of a conspiracy, you demonstrated that you lack understanding of that term.
P.P.S. Overt? They didn't hide what they were doing until it was done? Like Pearl harbor, they announced it the day before through official channels and launched a full scale massive attack in full view of the world's most advanced radar system? They didn't hide in commercial plane traffic or anything? While you have a dictionary open, check "overt" and "covert".

Re:Not worth reading...

[The One and Only]

Ya didn't read my link huh? "a building implosion is actually one of the most precisely planned, delicately balanced engineering feats you'll ever see." And you think this one just... happened all by itself? By magic?

Building implosions are carefully controlled to avoid property damage to surrounding buildings. You want to get it down to a less than 1% chance of damaging other buildings. That doesn't mean that, if a building collapses uncontrolled, it's guaranteed to damage other buildings. It only means that random building collapses have an unacceptably high probability (which in practice may mean greater than 1%, or even greater than 0.1%) of damaging other buildings. Besides, it makes no sense to suppose WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition, because WTC 1 and 2 *did* cause damage to surrounding buildings (thus making it inconsistent to be so cautious with WTC 7) and because there's no reason to make a neatly contained implosion when your objective is to destroy inhabited office buildings to further your Masonic plot from outer space.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Straif]

Any yet the very first link when searching for WTC7 DAMAGE shows a clear picture of the building with a large chunk taken out of the lower section as well as first hand accounts of the damage from people who saw it first hand.

Funny that.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Scrameustache]

it makes no sense to suppose WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition, because WTC 1 and 2 *did* cause damage to surrounding buildings (thus making it inconsistent to be so cautious with WTC 7) and because there's no reason to make a neatly contained implosion when your objective is to destroy inhabited office buildings to further your Masonic plot from outer space. Dammage like this to a building right next to the twin tower, a building that never collapsed even though it sustained much more dammage than WTC7?

I'll repeat this fact you conveniently ignore: Buildings do not fall into their own footprints spontaneously. To achieve such a highly coordinated feat, you need expert placement of demolition charges.
No steel building has ever collapsed from fire.
WT7 did not suffer extensive dammage from the collapse of the twin towers (unlike the standing building in the pic above).

And lastly, you have not a single shred of evidence to support your wild claim that steel buildings collapse on their own due to fire, instead you only offer stupid insults and straw men.
Masons from space? WTF is wrong with you? The milatary-industrial-congress complex has the means and the motives to get this done. Their budgets and influence were steadily declining after the end of the cold war: (pdf)
Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a
new Pearl Harbor. interests or that of its allies in space
or the "infosphere" will find it
difficult to exert global political
leadership.

REBUILDING
AMERICA'S
DEFENSES
Strategy, Forces and Resources
For a New Century
A Report of
The Project for the New American Century
September 2000

Re:Not worth reading...

[Scrameustache]

Any yet the very first link when searching for WTC7 DAMAGE shows a clear picture of the building with a large chunk taken out of the lower section as well as first hand accounts of the damage from people who saw it first hand.
Funny that. Real funny.

Try to find that gash in a video.

And that STILL doesn't cover the fact that buildings do not collapse in their footprint on their own, nor that other buildings suffered greater damage that day without collapsing, neither in their own footprint nor otherwise.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Straif]

I'm amazed at the claim so many people make that "buildings do not collapse in their footprint on their own" as some sort of proof that the collapse of the buildings were controlled. Do you think demolition engineers somehow break the laws of physics in performing their work; no, they simply use their knowledge of physics and engineering to create a situation most likely to result in a clean collapse but that in no way means that those same conditions can not occur in 'the wild', so to speak. Their are even some examples of just such collapses on some 'truther' sites as they have to somehow discredit their similarity to the WTC collapses to make their theory work.

The basic rule for a controlled demo is to weaken the base so that the weight of the building will cause it to fall. Gravity wants it to fall straight down. Buildings tend to topple over when there is still sufficient support in at least part of the lower levels to sustain the weight above the weakened point. When almost the entire weight of the building is above the weakened point, and the building is designed with a very low tolerance to weight distribution, there is simply no way for the lower levels to be able to put up much resistance to gravity and hence it will collapse.

As for other building suffering greater damage, what's your point. Did all of these building share WTC7's unique design? Did they all have large fuel reserves on the premises and high pressure fuel lines running through the building? Were they all over 40 stories and suffer significant damage to their lower levels near one of their primary support trusses?

Re:Not worth reading...

[Scrameustache]

I'm amazed at the claim so many people make that "buildings do not collapse in their footprint on their own" as some sort of proof that the collapse of the buildings were controlled. Do you think demolition engineers somehow break the laws of physics in performing their work; no, they simply use their knowledge of physics and engineering to create a situation most likely to result in a clean collapse but that in no way means that those same conditions can not occur in 'the wild', so to speak. Are you also amazed at the claim so many people make that "chunks of steel plating do not float", since shipbuilders can simply use their knowledge of physics and engineering to create a situation most likely to result in an aircraft carrier? That this, in no way, means those same conditions can not occur in 'the wild', so to speak?

Why don't you read what actual demolition professionals think:

THE MYTH OF 'IMPLOSION'
the only time a building is truly 'imploded' is when exposures (other structures or areas of concern) completely surround it. When this situation exists, the blaster has no choice; he must make the building collapse in on itself. This is by far the trickiest type of explosive demolition project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience--and insurance--to perform these true building implosions.

In this article, we'll find out how demolition crews plan and execute these spectacular implosions. The violent blasts and billowing dust clouds may look chaotic, but a building implosion is actually one of the most precisely planned, delicately balanced engineering feats you'll ever see.
[...]
Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.
[...]
destruction crews, begin taking out non-load-bearing walls within the building. This makes for a cleaner break at each floor: If these walls were left intact, they would stiffen the building, hindering its collapse.
[...]
Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half.
[...]
Two towers in the Holly Street Development in London, England, were demolished in March 2001. They were a formidable challenge for the blasting firm, Controlled Demolition Group, Ltd.. One tower had to be rigged so it would fall over on its side, away from a gas line, while the other had to collapse perfectly into its own footprint, to avoid damaging neighboring structures.
[...]
If they underestimate what explosive power is needed, or some of the explosives fail to ignite, the structure may not be completely demolished.
[...]
Typically, the actual implosion only takes a few seconds. To many onlookers, the speed of destruction is the most incredible aspect of an implosion. How can a building that took months and months to build, and stood up to the elements for a hundred years or more, collapse into a pile of rubble as if it were a sand castle?

Re:Not worth reading...

[The One and Only]

Dammage like this to a building right next to the twin tower, a building that never collapsed even though it sustained much more dammage than WTC7?

Rivers have "dammage". The word you're looking for is damage. And, while I'm not sure you have a strong grasp of which building sustained more damage, collapses are as much determined by where the damage is than how much damage there is. Anyone who's ever played Jenga know this.

I'll repeat this fact you conveniently ignore: Buildings do not fall into their own footprints spontaneously. To achieve such a highly coordinated feat, you need expert placement of demolition charges.

I dispute that "fact", which you have never given a shred of evidence for. It's true that controlled demolitions are highly coordinated and require expert placement of charges, but that's because the probability of damage to other buildings needs to be reduced to a very small probability. If you had ever studied engineering or operations management you'd know that a great deal of effort is expended keeping these probabilities down--you don't design a building implosion so that it doesn't damage other buildings, or a car that it continues running. You design a building implosion so it has as small as possible a probability of damaging other buildings. You build a car so that it has a small probability of component failure.

Why would the military-industrial complex (thanks for updating me on which perennial conspiracy-theory villain you're using!) destroy WTC7 so that it would collapse neatly into its own footprint, while failing to destroy WTC 1 and 2 the same way? Why would the military-industrial complex be worried about protecting other buildings from damage when they were deliberately committing an act of terrorism? Why would they go to all the effort to make 19 predominantly Saudi nationals all appear at the same time on the four airplanes they crashed, with Arabic-speaking voices on the cockpit recorders, if they had no intention of attacking Saudi Arabia? Why would they bother crashing planes into the towers if they was rigged with explosives to start with? Why did they arbitrarily restrain the attack to the WTC and Pentagon? Why did none of the 100,000 WTC inhabitants ever notice the explosives being installed? How come no one has come forth admitting to being a part of this gigantic conspiracy? I think the more important question is--what, other than your political biases, leads you to choose a gigantic conspiracy theory over thinking that maybe you were wrong about building collapses?

Re:Not worth reading...

[Scrameustache]

Rivers have "dammage". The word you're looking for is damage. And, while I'm not sure you have a strong grasp of which building sustained more damage, collapses are as much determined by where the damage is than how much damage there is. Anyone who's ever played Jenga know this.

Picking on typos. My, how incredibly mature.
Jenga. Excellent example. When has THAT ever collapsed neatly, smartass?

I'll repeat this fact you conveniently ignore: Buildings do not fall into their own footprints spontaneously. To achieve such a highly coordinated feat, you need expert placement of demolition charges.

I dispute that "fact", which you have never given a shred of evidence for.

I gave you a five page article AND a link to a company's explanation of how their business works. Not to mention numerous videos that explained this.
It's not my fault you're too much in a hurry to troll to bother reading and watching them.

Why would the military-industrial complex (thanks for updating me on which perennial conspiracy-theory villain you're using!) destroy WTC7 so that it would collapse neatly into its own footprint, while failing to destroy WTC 1 and 2 the same way?

Did the towers fall over on the side, or did they collapse in a column?
Were the towers simply too big for their rubble to be contained in the area of their base?

Are you too fucking stupid to think this through on your own?

Why would the military-industrial complex be worried about protecting other buildings from damage when they were deliberately committing an act of terrorism?

They own these buildings, it was a conservative expenditure of ressources.
Gotta spend money to make money.

Why would they go to all the effort to make 19 predominantly Saudi nationals all appear at the same time on the four airplanes they crashed, with Arabic-speaking voices on the cockpit recorders, if they had no intention of attacking Saudi Arabia?

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection.

Why would they bother crashing planes into the towers if they was rigged with explosives to start with?

Obviously, so you'll think the planes caused the collapse. DUH! Are you fucking retarded?

Why did they arbitrarily restrain the attack to the WTC and Pentagon?

Because they needed a symbolic attack, they aren't trying to inflict real damage.
Why would REAL terrorist stop at this one attack? Why no follow through?

Why did none of the 100,000 WTC inhabitants ever notice the explosives being installed?

"maintenance crews" were performing "repairs" on the structures that collapsed in the weeks before the events. Portions of the buildings were off-limits to the public to the day the attacks occurred.

How come no one has come forth admitting to being a part of this gigantic conspiracy?

Because the CIA is more subtle than the KGB.
They killed over two thousand civilians that day, about THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND MORE SINCE (5K+ of those US military personel), and you think they'd stop short at killing one more if he didn't keep his mouth shut? Do you make mommy type for you? 'Cause you sound too stupid to tie your own shoes.

I think the more important question is--what, other than your political biases, leads you to choose a gigantic conspiracy theory over thinking that maybe you were wrong about building collapses?

Re:Not worth reading...

[The One and Only]

All of your questions have been answered, all the data has been made available to you. Don't troll this thread anymore.

Drat and curses, you've found me out. I am indeed an agent of the Zionist-controlled military-industrial complex that evidently owns all the real estate in New York! While you have foiled my mission this time, be assured that our resources are far more extensive than your own!

Seriously, though, I'd love to live in your world for like one day. I'm sure life is interesting if you see fiendish plots worthy of Lex Luthor around every historical event.

Re:Not worth reading...

[iminplaya]

Probably lounging at his Black Sea beach pad.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Straif]

I actually saw all those sites yesterday before I posted but didn't want to bother throwing all that in to prove my point about how utterly unbelievable it is to think this was a man made collapse knowing how difficult such things are to perform in ideal conditions which does not include having the building being pelted with large chunks of debris or being on fire for several hours.

From your own copy and paste job, you even bolded part of it

"This is by far the trickiest type of explosive demolition project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience--and insurance--to perform these true building implosions."

So if I understand you correctly your argument is that a job that regularly requires weeks of planning and expert drilling, cabling and placement of explosives that by your own research, "there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world" capable of performing was done in a functioning office building in downtown New York without a single person noticing. And that makes more sense to you than a building collapsing under its own weight when part of it's critical support structure was significantly weakened by both a well fueled fire and debris from the collapse of a neighboring building.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Scrameustache]

So if I understand you correctly your argument is that a job that regularly requires weeks of planning and expert drilling, cabling and placement of explosives that by your own research, "there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world" capable of performing was done [...] And that makes more sense to you than a building collapsing [Magically in the same way under non-controlled conditions]? Yes.

If it had collapsed by accident, it would not have collapsed in the EXACT MANNER of a controlled demolition.
It would have fallen unevenly, in pieces, spreading debris all around, like 100% of accidental building collapses that didn't occur on September 11th, 2001, in NY, NY.
Only in the traumatic conditions of a world in a state of shock at the horror it is witnessing can you get people to suspend their disbelief to that fact.

Also, the fire was not well fueled, you can plainly see that only a few small fires were burning here and there. I know there was supposed to be a assload of fuel in the building, but you can't find any evidence that it was there and burning that day. I've already linked to the Madrid fire, you can go see what fire strong enough to bend steel REALLY looks like (hint: it's not a small flame here and there in just a few windows).
You can also see the firefighter videos from within the building when they get the call to evacuate. Heat strong enough to magically snap all the support columns in the precise locations and at the exact timing required for that beautiful implosion would have roasted those brave men.

Furthermore, controlled demolitions cause the building to collapse under it's own weight, they just break the support structures in a complicated way so it falls in one piece. So there is no "instead of collapsing under it's own weight". Maybe if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't throw these stupid points around?

And lastly, people did notice the construction crews in the weeks before the attacks. They were told it was routine maintenance. Why in the hell would they think that the owner-approved crews were doing anything nefarious?

Your braindead nitpicking doesn't change the basic point: Buildings never implode by themselves, it takes expert professionals to make that happen.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Straif]

I'll just let an expert independent reviewer settle the argument, and since you've already used his site in trying to back up your claim I'm sure you will acknowledge his expertise in the field.

So here's the Implosion World/Protec review of the collapse of all 3 WTC buildings. WTC7 is specifically dealt with about 2/3's of the way down. But feel free to dismiss all their on site testimonials, seismograph readings, photographic evidence and analysis of the events.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Rakarra]

I really wish there was a -1, Complete Retard moderation.

Re:Not worth reading...

[Rakarra]

Here's the San Francisco Chronicle report the morning of the accident: Link here

summary of most of them

[Anonymous Coward]

They are censored stories because on the balance, they make the USA look very, very bad on the world stage - the sort of evil the former USSR could only dream of. It is little surprise then, that these stories about American imperialism are censored, and that Americans don't even wish to read them in the first place. Seeing conclusive evidence that your country tortures people to death is not something people "wish" to hear, because it makes them face an uncomfortable fact. It's easier to stick your head in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong, even as your nation becomes hated by more and more of the world for its deeds.

All that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing...

Re:summary of most of them

[slarabee]

Bah. These are not censored stories in even the most generous use of the term.

Take a look at the judges they bother to mention by name on their own 'about us' page. Every single one of them is a liberal activist with some political axe to grind. This list would be more accurately described as 'Top 25 Things Liberals Want to Whine About This Year'.

It has as much relevance to true censorship as a list of conservative talking points composed by Ann Coulter and her loony friends.

Re:summary of most of them

[Sunburnt]

Every single one of them is a liberal activist with some political axe to grind.

Ah, then they must be full of shit. Everyone knows that you can't trust those people, so why bother to actually look into what they're reporting when it's easier to just make judgments based on political sentiment?

Re:summary of most of them

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing conclusive evidence that your country tortures people to death is not something people "wish" to hear, because it makes them face an uncomfortable fact.

It also seems to imply that some countries do not torture poeple to death. Seriously. Everyone's taxes go toward intelligence agencies that operate on two rules: do whatever you want and don't get caught.

We all pay other people to murder and kill and spy on our potential enemies for us.

Re:summary of most of them

[Xonstantine]

Ah, then they must be full of shit.

Pretty much. They would be less full of shit if they bothered to post a token non-left wing censored story.

Re:summary of most of them

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you fucking jackass sack of shit, it shows that they HAVE A CLEAR AS DAY BIAS, cocksucker.

And a 9/11 conspiracy story in there to boot? LOL! Oh man.

But I suppose assholes like you believe that shit. The big corporate media are just propaganda lapdogs for the right wing, and only the bloggers and slashdot posters know the "truth".

Fuck off.

Re:summary of most of them

[Anonymous Coward]

Very true. Thank you.

It should be noted that the FBI has surpassed the wildest dreams of the KGB. The FBI stamps out the spark of rebellion before it gets anywhere near starting a fire.

How long can they maintain this status quo? Not much longer at all...America is rotting from the inside very quickly.

Re:summary of most of them

[Jshadias]

This list would be more accurately described as 'Top 25 Things Liberals Want to Whine About This Year'. Take a look at the list. There are only a few things that could be considered "whining".

Re:summary of most of them

[Sunburnt]

Ah, then they must be full of shit. Pretty much. They would be less full of shit if they bothered to post a token non-left wing censored story.

I didn't realize that doing so would affect the individual validity/irrelevance of all the other selected stories. My bad; I keep forgetting that the presence of quantitative "balance" is the best indicator of truth. Perhaps I don't watch enough cable news.

Re:summary of most of them

[Sunburnt]

No, you fucking jackass sack of shit, it shows that they HAVE A CLEAR AS DAY BIAS, cocksucker.

I'm sorry, but could you suggest an "unbiased" source? I'm just curious to see if you're enough of a simpleton to believe in such fairy tales.

And a 9/11 conspiracy story in there to boot? LOL! Oh man.

I actually agree with you, 9/11 conspiracies are pretty laughable. I must have missed the entire list's focus on 9/11 conspiracies.

But I suppose assholes like you believe that shit.

No, but that sort of asinine assumption is a great example of how some folks can let their political inclinations do their thinking. Good job!

The big corporate media are just propaganda lapdogs for the right wing

No, they're nowhere near as picky about the source of their income.

and only the bloggers and slashdot posters know the "truth".

Well, wrong again. Thanks for playing, you anonymous shit smear.

Re:summary of most of them

[Anonymous Coward]

AMEN BROTHER

Re:summary of most of them

[mrbluze]

'Top 25 Things Liberals Want to Whine About This Year'.

Wait until the Liberals get power in the US and we find that the US follows exactly the same foreign policy as it does now. We'll probably find that similar shady operatives like Cheney are behind the Democrats who also have business interests in which similarly tie in with US foreign policy decisions.

Although these stories are used as political ammunition by Democrats, this has nothing to do with them. There actually is no realistic opposition on the political scene to any of these scandals. Both sides of politics are implicated - although to say there are two sides to the political scene in the US is kind of ironic in itself.

Re:summary of most of them

[CrkHead]

Bah. These are not censored stories in even the most generous use of the term.

How does this definition sound:

2. a. An official empowered to examine written or printed matter, as manuscripts of books, plays, foreign newspapers or magazines, etc., in order to forbid publication, circulation, or representation if it contains anything objectionable.

Just to ensure the word wasn't recently changed, I went to my copy of Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, Unabridged copyright 1953.

Now, you can try to argue that major media owners are not "officials" but with the current status of influence money has on world politics I think it would be a hard arguement to win.

Re:summary of most of them

[that this is not und]

Hey, Americans get to choose whether they drink Coke or Pepsi.

Hell, they can even be lil'rebels and drink RC Cola if they want.

Re:summary of most of them

[Xonstantine]

I didn't realize that doing so would affect the individual validity/irrelevance of all the other selected stories I keep forgetting that the presence of quantitative "balance" is the best indicator of truth.

Individually, it doesn't, but collectively it's pretty clear that the list is ONLY the undercovered stories from a hard core left-wing perspective. Individually, the stories may or may not be true, but really, it doesn't matter...the objective here is clearly NOT to highlight censored stories, just stories that the left-wing wishes were more widely known.

Re:summary of most of them

[Gorshkov]

It should be noted that the FBI has surpassed the wildest dreams of the KGB. The FBI stamps out the spark of rebellion before it gets anywhere near starting a fire.

I hope the hell I'm not the only one here who finds that comparison odious in the extreme.

The KGB - and it's precursors, the NKVD, and the Cheka before that - is directly responsible for the deaths over the years of over 20 MILLION people by most estimates - over 10 million during the Stalin purges alone.

They were responsible for the extreme torture of hundreds of thousands on the basis of nothing more than the say-so of a neighbour.

They were responsible for the forced movements of entire peoples from one part of the Soviet Union to distant parts of Siberia and the Far East.

They ran forced labour camps, all across the country.

How you can compare that to even the worst excesses of the FBI, even under Hoover, is beyond me.

How long can they maintain this status quo? Not much longer at all...America is rotting from the inside very quickly.

The only thing "rotting" here is your knowledge of history - even on a surface level.

Re:summary of most of them

[F34nor]

That's why I drink the blood of the innocents, great taste and LOTS of iron!

Re:summary of most of them

[Sunburnt]

Individually, the stories may or may not be true, but really, it doesn't matter

That's where we disagree, then. If the Washington Times published a list of the top 25 stories that conservatives wanted to see with more airtime, that fact in itself would not make the stories interesting/irrelevant. Such a determination can only rest on the merit of an individual story, in my view.

Re:summary of most of them

[Yvanhoe]

Well, US government is right-wing, some visible medias are really right-wing (TV named after a furry animal) so I would bet that most of the non-left issues are pretty visible right now.

Of course, it takes a left-wing liberal to bring subjects that doesn't interest or disturbs right-wingers.

Re:summary of most of them

[doom]

Although these stories are used as political ammunition by Democrats, this has nothing to do with them.

What planet do you live on? The Democrats wouldn't know political ammunition if you dumped it on their heads -- certainly that's happened often enough in recent years, and they still don't seem to be catching on.

The democratic Grand Strategy at present is "keep your head down, maybe the Republicans will keep screwing up".

Re:summary of most of them

[mrbluze]

The democratic Grand Strategy at present is "keep your head down, maybe the Republicans will keep screwing up".

I had to laugh when I read that, because it's true. But perhaps they are quiet on things because the trail of dirt passes through their garden too.

Re:summary of most of them

[Xonstantine]

Well, US government is right-wing

Actually, the US government is split, with the Democrats firmly in control of Congress. Additionally, Bush isn't all that right wing (illegal alien amnesty, massive increase in social spending via medicaid/medicare drug program, etc) unless you are coming from the European left-wing slant of "anyone who disagrees with me is a right wing fascist". Sorta like how Pim Fortuyn was considered far right wing even though he was a homosexual libertarian who's only right wing stance was stopping the immigration of minorities who weren't assimilating into Dutch liberal culture.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the news is a business and stories that are sexy, simple, and scandalous get more playtime than ones that are complicated, boring, or confusing. This isn't a right wing or a left wing issue. What makes it a left-wing or right-wing issue is when an organization posts "The top 25 censored news stories of 2007" when they really mean "The 25 most censtored 'progressive' left wing news stories of 2007".

Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

#18 Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story

It wasn't planes! New York doesn't even exist, man!

Let them hear!

[guruevi]

You should, just as me, talk to your friends and family about these subjects. It's good that the world gets to know what goes on in the world! We all have the obligation to criticize all attacks on free speech.

The war in Iraq, the wars in Congo is watered down for a lot of reasons by all mainstream media. However, there is a solution: daily news podcasts, the blogosphere and a lot of 'new media' has (as always) been used by so called (as the mainstream media calls it) alternative journalists just as the "pirate" radiostations in the 70's, the "resistance" during the world wars and in the soviet nations kept us informed about what was really going on while oppressive fascists tried to influence the sheeple what we thought. /. is one of those sources where DRM, the DMCA and censoring is a frequent subject, however the mainstream media doesn't ever give any attention to it.

Re:Let them hear!

[megaditto]

Why would you want your friends/family to realize what kind of a crazy conspiracy kook you really are?

But then again, judging from your ramblings in the rest of your post they already know it.

This List Is Useless and Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

None of those stories were from this year, and the fact they put out this list before 2007 is halfway over shows their pre-set agenda.

I would have expected the slashdot editors to show some common decency to not post crap like this on the front page, but since this is great flamewar material, this is what you get.

Umm sounds like it was posted by

[C_Kode]

Sounds like a zealot extremist. While I believe some, I'm more than sure someone *heard* something and is trying to get their name in lights.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Re:Umm sounds like it was posted by

[Spy der Mann]

Sounds like a zealot extremist ... Move along, nothing to see here.

Your mind tricks won't work on me. I live outside the US and information like this is COMMON on our news broadcasts.

I'm still amazed at how much corporations can brainwash american couch potatoes.

Re:Umm sounds like it was posted by

[pilsner.urquell]

Tripe isn't worth reading. Stories are obviously the product of the far left wing kook show the same one that is going to bite some members congress in there ass.

Take for example Elliot D. Cohen who authored the first story. He writes profusely for the Democratic Underground DOT com with many unfounded stories about George Bush. In reading some of these others pieces it is obvious that that man doesn't understand anything about war, military actions or American History. In his article titled "How Do You Spell DICTATOR"? if he truly believes the President to be a dictator he obviously hasn't read any thing about Abraham Lincoln who was a real tyrant.

Cohen probably believes that Peter III of Russia was a military genius

Re:Umm sounds like it was posted by

[maxume]

I'm a couch carrot, thank you very much.

Re:Umm sounds like it was posted by

[Spy der Mann]

Good ol American here. Any good online news sites you can recommend then?
I've been checking out the BBC, but even they are pretty filtered these days...

Try newspaper and news channel websites around the world - of course, there's the issue of translating them :-/

For Mexico, there's Proyecto 40, El Universal and La Cronica (right-wing tendency). La Jornada has a left-wing tendency. (No subscription needed for any of them). Of course, you can translate most of them via Google Language tools.

Google news is also a nice source for news - the key is finding a proxy for the country of your choice to fool Google (just in case of great firewalls) and/or including it in the url. Example:
http://news.google.com/news?ned=es_mx&topic=w gives you world news tailored for Mexico, in spanish.

Hope that helps.

Re:Umm sounds like it was posted by

[Gorshkov]

I'm still amazed at how much corporations can brainwash american couch potatoes.

I'm amazed at how much people think that others who disagree with them can only possibly do so on the basis of either idiocy or brainwashing. (I'm not critiquing the parent, per se - I'm making a comment on the general tone of the comments I've seen in this thread so far.

I'm not American, either - I'm Canadian. But there wasn't one single story on that list that I haven't come across at least once in the last year or so.

Yes, I have a TV ..... but it's only use for the last 2 years or so has been by my daughter for her video games.

I don't have a radio.

So - if I'm living in such a cave, how have *I* heard of these stories, when they've been censored?

Not reporting what you don't think your readers aren't interested in isn't censorship - it's an editorial decision based on the (relative) scarcity of column-inches or airtime.

The list

[Bueller_007]

#1 Future of Internet Debate Ignored by Media
#2 Halliburton Charged with Selling Nuclear Technologies to Iran
#3 Oceans of the World in Extreme Danger
#4 Hunger and Homelessness Increasing in the US
#5 High-Tech Genocide in Congo
#6 Federal Whistleblower Protection in Jeopardy
#7 US Operatives Torture Detainees to Death in Afghanistan and Iraq
#8 Pentagon Exempt from Freedom of Information Act
#9 The World Bank Funds Israel-Palestine Wall
#10 Expanded Air War in Iraq Kills More Civilians
#11 Dangers of Genetically Modified Food Confirmed
#12 Pentagon Plans to Build New Landmines
#13 New Evidence Establishes Dangers of Roundup
#14 Homeland Security Contracts KBR to Build Detention Centers in the US
#15 Chemical Industry is EPA's Primary Research Partner
#16 Ecuador and Mexico Defy US on International Criminal Court
#17 Iraq Invasion Promotes OPEC Agenda
#18 Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story
#19 Destruction of Rainforests Worst Ever
#20 Bottled Water: A Global Environmental Problem
#21 Gold Mining Threatens Ancient Andean Glaciers
#22 $Billions in Homeland Security Spending Undisclosed
#23 US Oil Targets Kyoto in Europe
#24 Cheney's Halliburton Stock Rose Over 3000 Percent Last Year
#25 US Military in Paraguay Threatens Region

Re:The list

[Blakey Rat]

Number 18 is the standard "The US Government Made 9/11 Happen!" paranoid conspiracy crap. If this was ignored by the media, GOOD!

The majority of the stories are either "Bush/Cheney/The US/Halliburton is evil" or "OMG panic the environment is in trouble." I'm thinking the real purpose of this list is to say "here's stuff I think is really important but most people don't. Since I don't think it was featured enough, I'll going to just claim it was censored by news networks."

Re:The list

[Anonymous Coward]

Every single "issue" they list is a Bush/neocon conspiracy.

None of these stories were censored, they are just so asinine that they've been rightly ignored.

Re:The list

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate writing significant posts as AC but I moderated on this story so...

The thing is, the Middle-East policies of the US administrations of the past 50 years caused, at least in part, 9/11. Bush/Cheney I only blame for the Iraq Invasion.

Re:The list

[PapayaSF]

I'm thinking the real purpose of this list is to say "here's stuff I think is really important but most people don't. Since I don't think it was featured enough, I'll going to just claim it was censored by news networks."

Bingo. While there are some important stories here, lack of coverage isn't the same as censorship, and the ideological bias of Project Censored is obvious. I'm sure some right-wing group could compile an equivalent list of stories they feel were "censored" by inadequate coverage.

Re:The list

[Fish (David Trout)]

I can't believe the following response was rated "insightful":

"Number 18 is the standard "The US Government Made 9/11 Happen!" paranoid conspiracy crap. If this was ignored by the media, GOOD!"

"Paranoid"?
"Conspiracy?"
"Crap"?
"GOOD!"?!

It is now deemed "GOOD" for the media to ignore reporting the largely unknown (under-reported) fact that many quite highly qualified individuals seriously question the official story behind what is quite possibly the most important recent event in United States history?!

You sir are a troll. Someone who, upon having made up their own mind regarding the so-called facts of the case, are now bound and determined to see that the case remains closed (like your mind) by encouraging the suppression of dissenting views and/or new evidence/opinions on the matter. After all it's only YOUR view that counts, right?

People like you make me sick to my stomach.

I may not buy into many of the current theories floating around out there regarding what actually happened on 9/11 or who was behind it and why, but at least I, unlike you, am open-minded enough to at least listen to and entertain the possibility that some of the more well thought-out and investigated and, dare I say it, PROBABLE ones just MAY merit more serious and thoughtful investigation (not to mention reporting).

Please understand that I am, NOT necessarily saying the [under-]reporting of such theories/questions is necessarily censorship, but regarding censorhsip I can say the following with absolute certainty:

Censorship sucks, as do closed minds such as yours that seemingly support it.

Re:The list

[slughead]

The majority of the stories are either "Bush/Cheney/The US/Halliburton is evil" or "OMG panic the environment is in trouble." I'm thinking the real purpose of this list is to say "here's stuff I think is really important but most people don't. Since I don't think it was featured enough, I'll going to just claim it was censored by news networks."

I totally agree. The last one of these 'censored stories of XXXX' I read was actually good though, so I read this one.

Total waste of my time. Speaking of wasted, sometimes I play a drinking game with lengthy news articles. Every time I read something that even I could discern as incorrect, I had a shot. I'm on my second bottle of scotch after reading this one.

Slashdot made me into an alcoholic.

Re:The list

[Stealth Potato]

It is now deemed "GOOD" for the media to ignore reporting the largely unknown (under-reported) fact that many quite highly qualified individuals seriously question the official story behind what is quite possibly the most important recent event in United States history?!

"Highly qualified"? I'm sure. Just like creationists are always ready to trot out all those "highly-qualified biologists" who oppose evolution.

I don't see anything wrong with ignoring crackpot conspiracy theories that have already been thoroughly debunked.

Re:The list

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Guiliani,

Your response is the standard "Any credible scientist that mentions any scientific facts that makes me nervous is no longer credible--and rather than objectively considering the issues raised, I'll falsely claim they're blaming our Govt. so I can argue against that indefensable position while ignoring issues scientists actually raised." -- didn't you learn from what happened with Ron Paul?

The report isn't saying the U.S. Govt. "made it happen" or "blew shit up"--on the contrary, the report asks why the Govt. is NOT investigating things such as the speed of collapse of WTC 7 (only 0.6 seconds from free fall speed) and other matters that SHOULD be of interest to our Govt. Don't they want to know if the bad guys ONLY flew planes or ALSO planted shit in advance?

Lets ask rational questions and use credible, falsifiable tests before debating "who done it."

Good grief, I suppose you'd accuse the police of blaming the murder victim if they try to uncover the motives of the criminal.

By the way, did you even look at the background of the physicist? He's a Republican and his credentials are impressive.

Re:The list

[asninn]

What's it like to be a member of the sheeple?

Re:The list

[F34nor]

Sir I'd like to call bullshit on you. Why? Because you are not responding to his point, your are illustrating it. What you typed has nothing to do with the idea of -- looking into claims --. Look into the "highly qualified" and decide. Report that process and the decision you reach. The subject of the story is unimportant, the systems that we build to compare and contrast ideas and the market place in which we view those debates is the only thing that has lasting value.

Re:The list

[Anonymous Coward]

You make a fair point about the conspiracy stories. Too much sensationalism also puts people off.
There was some real stuff buried in there, for example #5 and #13 were interesting to me.
I thought niobium was a new better alternative to tantalum http://powerelectronics.com/mag/power_solidelectro lyte_niobium_capacitors/ as its supply was more secure, but it seems it is mined in the same region.

I also thought Roundup was really safe, I didn't know it was toxic in a marine environment, especially to ampibians. http://www.pitt.edu/~relyea/Roundup.html

Re:The list

[toby]

"Bush/Cheney/The US/Halliburton is evil" or "OMG panic the environment is in trouble."

So which of these do you disagree with?

Re:The list

[Omnifarious]

Hmm... I'm not claiming the US government is behind the attacks, but I still think some of the theories and ideas that some of these people have still bear looking into. They hang together remarkably well, and they are largely devoid of any speculation as to the larger picture, only that observations of some particular event in the tragedy seem to be inconsistent with the official explanation of the reasons for event. And those inconsistencies seem real to me.

There is little or no wild-eyed speculation about vast networks of people organizing some horrible thing. Only questions about specific physical events that really should have better answers than they currently do.

The official version is a conspiracy theory too BTW. It posits this vast conspiracy called Al-Queda. Yet you are willing to swallow that with no question while trying to brand people who have very specific questions about very specific pieces of verifiable physical evidence as 'conspiracy theorists'.

Re:The list

[mpe]

I don't see anything wrong with ignoring crackpot conspiracy theories that have already been thoroughly debunked.

Thing is that in this case it's the debunking which is being ignored. Whereas the "crackpot conspiracy theories" which fit with the neocon world view continue to be pushed at full volume.

Re:The list

[Blakey Rat]

The vast majority of the 9/11 conspiracy "evidence" is of the form:

1) Eyewitnesses don't report consistant stories. (For example, they hear multiple explosions that 'sound like bombs'.)

This is well-known to be true in crisis situations. Ask any police officer about the eyewitness reports they get after a car accident or a murder and they'll tell you that the information is correct and useful only in the widest sense. (i.e. male suspect, tall as opposed to female suspect, short). In addition to this, there's a mental component that makes people claim to be eyewitnesses when, frankly, they were too far away, or had their vision obscured by something.

And the average person on the street, frankly, has no idea what an exploding bomb sounds like.

2) The hole in the Pentagon isn't large enough, additionally there was not enough debris. (Implying it was hit by a missile or commuter jet.)

  Look at this video of an F-4 hitting reinforced concrete walls:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466424262 6206288868&q=jet+hitting+wall

Imagine that on a larger scale. The Boeing hitting the Pentagon was larger, of course, but its speed wasn't significantly slower than that F-4's and the walls of the Pentagon aren't much thinner than the reinforced wall used in the test also. The plane virtually vaporized on that impact.

3) The steel in the World Trade Center couldn't possibly have weakened from the fire enough to collapse.

http://news.google.com/news?um=1&tab=wn&client=saf ari&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rls=en&q=freeway+collapse+sa n+francisco&btnG=Search+News

Oh yeah? It's happened since in a very similar circumstance.

If you're referring to the "issues" brought up in the movie Loose Change, they've already been thoroughly debunked several times:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_cha nge.html

I'm not saying here that everything reported in the media, and everything said by the government is true. The simple fact is that extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence, and the 9/11 conspiracy people simply don't have it.

Re:The list

[Anonymous Coward]

It feels like ... being a moveon.org type. You complain about manufactured dissent, but you fall for it so easily. Who stands the most to gain from destroying governments. Let me give you a hint, he contributed a LOT of money to moveon. There's your evil capitalist.

Re:The list

[Anonymous Coward]

Both. It's socialist propoganda.

Wrong Title

[FS]

I agree that many of these things should be more important to the public than they are, however this top 25 list was clearly compiled from a left leaning point of view. The title or summary should include something about this obvious bias. For example, to accuse the media of covering for Dick Cheney and Haliburton is insane. The media would take him out instantly if they thought anything they had was strong enough to do it.

The Internet debate, while very important to me, is not the most important thing in the world that has been "censored." Its position at the top of the list is designed to grab our attention and get traffic headed their way in the hopes that someone will read the rest of this. This website is no better than CNN, ABC, FOX, etc. They all are trying to get across their own viewpoints, not raw news.

Re:Wrong Title

[Anonymous Coward]

You're very confident the media would "take him out instantly". What makes you so sure?

From TFA:

[fahrbot-bot]

1. Future of Internet Debate Ignored by Media
2. Halliburton Charged with Selling Nuclear Technologies to Iran
3. Oceans of the World in Extreme Danger
4. Hunger and Homelessness Increasing in the US
5. High-Tech Genocide in Congo
6. Federal Whistleblower Protection in Jeopardy
7. Pentagon Exempt from Freedom of Information Act
8. The World Bank Funds Israel-Palestine Wall
9. Expanded Air War in Iraq Kills More Civilians
10. Dangers of Genetically Modified Food Confirmed
11. Pentagon Plans to Build New Landmines
12. New Evidence Establishes Dangers of Roundup
13. Homeland Security Contracts KBR to Build Detention Centers in
14. Chemical Industry is EPA's Primary Research Partner
15. Ecuador and Mexico Defy US on International Criminal Court
16. Iraq Invasion Promotes OPEC Agenda
17. Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story
18. Destruction of Rainforests Worst Ever
19. Gold Mining Threatens Ancient Andean Glaciers
20. Billions in Homeland Security Spending Undisclosed
21. US Oil Targets Kyoto in Europe
22. Cheney's Halliburton Stock Rose Over 3000 Percent Last Year
23. US Military in Paraguay Threatens Region

Wouldn't you know it; the most important story wasn't even listed!
It all started back when +++ATHSHHSY&#^^# NO CARRIER

Re:From TFA:

[westlake]

#3 Oceans of the World in Extreme Danger

I have assume that National Geographic doesn't count as media because it devoted an entire issue to the decline of the world's fisheries....

# 13 # Homeland Security Contracts KBR to Build Detention Centers in U.S.

or the NY Times:

Halliburton Subsidiary Gets Contract to Add Temporary Immigration Detention Centers [February 4, 2006]

Who changed the definition of censorship?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Last I heard, censorship is when The Man(tm) takes forcible action to squash a story that's damaging, incriminating, or otherwise detrimental to The Powers That Be(tm). You know, like North Korea killing stories of mass starvation, or good old Soviet-style disinformation and destruction of the concept of a free press like what's going on in...old Soviet-style Russia.

However, while I was napping last night, someone conveniently changed the definition to mean "when the mass media doesn't give a certain pet story/cause/event of mine the attention I think it deserves."

Somebody call Websters. Unless, of course, the story headline is wrong, and this is merely someone upset their pet story/cause/event isn't getting the attention they think it deserves... ...nah, that couldn't be it.

Re:Who changed the definition of censorship?

[coaxial]

You obviously don't know how censorship works. Sure there's the obvious book burning censorship, but then there's the more subtle kind. The kind that's motivated from access and financial motivations. "If you don't kill the story, we'll take our 10 million dollar advertising contract to your largest competitor." "If you don't paint this story in light favorable to us, you'll never have access to us again."

That's censorship. If you don't think these things happen, you're incredibly naive. Sure, it's comforting to think that there's only one form of censorship, but that's simply not the case.

Re:Who changed the definition of censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

prisoner-of-enigma wrote:
>
> Last I heard, censorship is when The Man(tm) takes forcible action to squash a story
> that's damaging, incriminating, or otherwise detrimental to The Powers That Be(tm).


You must have missed the memo. The mainstream media are part of and collude with The Powers That Be(tm).

Try to pay more attention next time.

Re:Who changed the definition of censorship?

[whopub]

As a media graduate let me just say that there are many subtle ways to censor a story. Something as harmless as an editor deciding which reporter will follow a story is enough to influence the end result. You really know nothing about how the media operate and have no clue about their agendas.

As long as censorship is perceived by americans as something that only happens when the whole communist textbook we see in the movies is followed, I guess you guys should continue with the 'land of the free, home of the brave' bullshit.

I just wish Bill Hicks was still around to bitchslap you across the face.

Re:Who changed the definition of censorship?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

As a media graduate let me just say that there are many subtle ways to censor a story.

Thank you, dear sir, for stumbling upon the obvious. It's a credit to your degree in media that you have such a penetrating insight into the commonplace.

Now that the sarcasm is out of the way, allow me to say that, according to your definition, censorship can be anything, anywhere, anytime, anyhow, done by anyone to anything. Conveniently, this allows you to play the victim whenever you want whilst simultaneously brushing off criticism as either naive or myrmidons of The Man(tm). "Censorship exists whenever I say it does, and your refutation of that confirms your desire to censor me!" How quaint and useful!

Pardon me if I don't subscribe to such a ridiculous notion. Then again, maybe I'm just partaking too much of this "'land of the free, home of the brave bullshit" as you so eloquently put it. Did your media professor advise you to use that last expletive, or did you have to look it up? Perhaps you've heard of the phrase "profanity is the province of little minds," or didn't they teach that in your curriculum?

Re:Who changed the definition of censorship?

[whopub]

If you took the time to read the parent post to which I was replying to, maybe you wouldn't have made such an ass of yourself. But hey, it's a free country, right?

Re:Who changed the definition of censorship?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

If you took the time to read the parent post to which I was replying to, maybe you wouldn't have made such an ass of yourself. But hey, it's a free country, right?

What parent post? OH! You mean, my parent post! Or are you too dense to understand the threading concept at Slashdot? But wait, I'm forgetting that you have a media degree, so I should've automatically adjusted my expectations of your intelligence downwards to begin with. My apologies for exposing your mental limitations for all to see.

As for it being a free country, you should be careful saying that! It sounds too much like that old "land of the free, home of the brave bullshit" you spoke of earlier. The censors will come and get you! After all, censorship is everywhere...right?

Re:Who changed the definition of censorship?

[whopub]

What parent post? OH! You mean, my parent post! Yep, YOUR parent post. That's the one you should've read more carefully.

Or are you too dense Well, I could lose a few pounds...

But wait, I'm forgetting that you have a media degree There were a lot of dumbasses there, trust me...

I should've automatically adjusted my expectations of your intelligence downwards to begin with. Now you're starting to understand! That's something the media are notorious about, and it's one of those subtle ways, even when unwillingly, to make sure a story doesn't get through as it should.

I understand your North Korean example, and you're right about that, but what you don't see is that there's much more to censorship or, to humor you, for a given story to be kept from us. That's it.

My apologies for exposing your mental limitations for all to see. Are you kidding?! That's something I do all the time. I certainly don't need your help there. And judging by your posts you're doing a great job there yourself...

As for it being a free country, you should be careful saying that! Well, I was talking about MY country, not the US. But yes, it's all the same. The difference is that we don't have any delusions of grandeur around here. Yours is a 'young' country. There's stuff you can't understand yet. Hopefully a new generation will one day get it. Let's just give evolution some time to bleach your genes out of the pool first.

It sounds too much like that old "land of the free, home of the brave bullshit" you spoke of earlier. The censors will come and get you! I'll be ok. When you understand how things work you figure out your way around them. I'd have more to worry about if I thought censorship is something only the North Koreans have to worry about...

Remember: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

After all, censorship is everywhere...right? That's it. Sort of... You're starting to get it.

Of 2007?

[FlyingSquidStudios]

Did the year end already? Man, I gotta quit drinkin' because I thought it was May.

Re:Of 2007?

[Icarus1919]

It's a news tactic designed to get people to read. Really, all the stories are from 2006, but most people would look at "Top 25 Censored Stories of 2006" and think: "2006? That's old news, what's happening NOW?!"

Thus, top stories of 2007. 2007 is now baby. 2006 is so last year.

Re:Of 2007?

[imperious_rex]

Yeah, WTF is it with these recent Top/Most/Best/Worst/etc of 2007 lists?? Is the news media that starved for eyeballs they need to pretend it's late December and crank out these stupid lists? Will we be seeing "Top 10 Natural Disasters of 2007" or "Worst Celebrity Scandals of 2007" in the next few weeks?

Re:Of 2007?

[iminplaya]

We're too focused on the arrival of January, 2009. The steady decline is a sure thing at least till then. And the smart money is on more of the same.

Re:Of 2007?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, someone has pushed the big red button, and the media knows but can't tell us.
I salute this effort to sneak the news past the pre-screening and out to us, in the guise of an article about censorship, no less.

Re:Of 2007?

[ColaMan]

It did end already. Didn't you know? All years end at the end of May now.

Perhaps *your* news sources censored the fact - *my* sources have been all over this since the decision to shorten years was made just before Y2K. So much easier to work around the whole Y2K issue if you have shortened years, you know. Of course, it's all going to bite us in the ass in May 2019, but I'm sure we'll have it sorted by then.

Re:Of 2007?

[Rotten168]

Did the year end already? Man, I gotta quit drinkin' because I thought it was May. Add that to the Bush neocon/Halliburton conspiracy... he stole 6 months from the year!

So, let me see if I get this...

[Sunburnt]

People who dissent against a war that is destroying America's military capability are treasonous hippies, but it's cool for Halliburton to actually enable a nuclear program conducted in the "Axis of Evil?"

Add "treason" to the list of words made meaningless by this corrupt administration and its enablers, along with "freedom," "strength," and "morality."

Re:So, let me see if I get this...

[Locklin]

You forgot Security

Re:So, let me see if I get this...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the tale spun by jason (Rove Indicted, 24 Hrs. to get his affairs in order) leopold? If one has no credibility and they're ignored then how can they whine about how they were censored. That you took the bait is even more amusing. You want so badly for the story to be true you completely ignore the known fraudulent source.

Re:So, let me see if I get this...

[Sunburnt]

Halliburton's connection, through the loophole of offshore subsidiaries, with our supposed enemies in Iran has been covered by a few more people than Jason Leopold. If there's only one source for the specific nuclear program allegations, than they may be suspect: that doesn't change the fact that a major U.S. company, with intimate ties to a Vice President who essentially paints the opposition party as a pack of treasonous cringing hippies, is providing aid and comfort to a "rogue state" in the "Axis of Evil."

You want so badly for the story to be true you completely ignore the known fraudulent source.

And you seem to want so badly for my post to be wrong that you miss its point entirely. Good job, Anonymous Coward.

Re:So, let me see if I get this...

[gone.fishing]

Amen.

On balance

[PHAEDRU5]

The sort of story /. would just have to disseminate.

Does anyone else out there have the feeling that /. is increasingly an anti-American, leftist swamp, of no real importance to anyone?

Re:On balance

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I post anon whenever I have to go against a leftist issue since they use offtopic, redundant and troll as substitutes for 'I disagree with you'.

Re:On balance

[Sunburnt]

Does anyone else out there have the feeling that [the White House] is increasingly an anti-American, [rightist] swamp, of no real importance to anyone [except lobbyists]

Good post, just had to fix a bit of your spelling.

Re:On balance

[kmac06]

Nope. It's not "increasingly" the case, it always has been.

Re:On balance

[Anonymous Coward]

> Does anyone else out there have the feeling that /. is increasingly an anti-American,

Does anyone else out there have the feeling that /. (and an increasing part of the whole WORLD) is anti-American *because* of America's killing of Iraqi civilians, torturing detainees to death, derailing the Kyoto protocol, arresting people in other nations for violating *American* laws, and generally getting in everbody else's face?

Oh, wait... no, I'm sure you're right, it's just "anti-Americanism" with no cause whatsoever! It's just, uhhh, random. Yeah, that's it. Couldn't possibly be that the rest of the world is scared absolutely shitless of the USA right now. It must just be a vast conspiracy that the whole rest of the world is pulling on you for the fun of it.

Re:On balance

[Anonymous Coward]

increasingly an anti-American

Lulz. Halliburton sold equipment to Iran (let's drop the nuclear bit here, and keep in mind that Iran is under an embargo, and you're not supposed to sell ANYTHING to them.) Slashdot reports on the public news not reporting on it, and who's the enemy of America here? Halliburton, for selling equipment to our enemy? The media for not exposing Halliburton as the traitors they are?

No, it's slashdot, because the Republicans have such a short memory they can't recall when slashdot was bashing Clinton for the stupid shit he did, they simply assume that Slashdot must be a "leftist swamp".

Good game, man. Good game.

Re:On balance

[bbhack]

You value your /. account status? "Karma", or whatever the fsck. Why?

Re:On balance

[dbIII]

of no real importance to anyone?

So why are you or I here then?

Re:On balance

[coaxial]

Please defend the "anti-American" comment. Contrast slashdot with a "pro-American" site.

The whole "x hates America" meme has been used for over 50 years with little justificiation beyond, "X doesn't agree with my reactionary viewpoint."

I've checked your website, and I have to ask, why do you hate America? Because from any objective viewpoint, you hate America. Why is that?

Re:On balance

[lionheart1327]

Slashdot is nothing. Have you seen Reddit lately?

Re:On balance

[Eli Gottlieb]

As a matter of fact, I have seen Reddit lately. After seeing it, I canceled my Reddit account. And I'm planning to vote for relatively leftist candidates.

Of course, it's the Conspiratorial-Anti-Israelism-Verging-into-Anti-Se mitism that I really hated.

Re:On balance

[that this is not und]

He likes to post at default 2.

The tact that I choose is instead to check the 'No Karma Bonus' box. That way if I am making any sense at all, my comments will get modded up some of the time. That maintains a balance so that I have the freedom to tell people to fuck off in comments regularly, and the appropriate 'slapdown' is counterbalanced. You can't make as many comments per day if you don't have 'excellent' karma.

And, there are a lot of people here who need somebody to tell them they are stupid fucks.

Re:On balance

[that this is not und]

Sadly, on the left there is anti-Israel bordering on anti-semitism, whereas on the right, there is anti-Islam bordering on outright racism.

Lots of ill-informed nuts out there. Ain't it great that everybody gets their voice heard now?

Re:On balance

[GreatBunzinni]

Does anyone else out there have the feeling that /. is increasingly an anti-American, leftist swamp, of no real importance to anyone?

Slashdot isn't "increasingly anti-US". It is, however, receiving more and more visits from non-USian readers who not only register but also comment on issues. As the US's foreign relations has been going down the crapper in the last decade or so and therefore becoming more and more isolated, it is expectable that the entire world expresses an opinion which doesn't coincide with the opinions of some americans.

And slashdot isn't "increasingly a leftist swamp". If you didn't noticed, there isn't any "left" on the US political scene at all. There is only the extreme far left, embodied by the US's republican party and the not so extreme far left, embodied by the US's democratic party. What elected US official publicly supports programs like housing or public transportation programs? Any republican? Any democrat? What about basic worker's rights like job protection or unemployment subsidy? Heck, the american political scene still believes that free and unencumbered access to healthcare services and treatments, supported by the state through american taxes, is some sort of "communist blasphemy". With a political scene so saturated with the right-wing way of thinking, naturally some americans see issues and opinions which don't toe the far-right line (the US's mainstream way of thinking) as "leftist" or even "communist".

And that jab at the supposed importance of slashdot, the only thing that it demonstrates is your attitude towards the opinions that aren't parallel to yours, along with those who express them. You are claiming that this blog is losing importance because you aren't being served with the mainstream points of view and opinions that you have been accustomed to. You are not being served with a string of homogeneous "OMG ME TOO!" followup comments. Instead, you are seeing an ever increasing amount of replies which defend different opinions. As you aren't being served with what you wish to read, which is your own personal point of view on things, then, instead of keeping an open mind or even trying to debate and expose your ideas based on reasoning, you prefer to simply ridicule those who do not share your personal set of values and views by labelling them with small, baseless offensive tags. And quite frankly, if someone isn't capable of dealing with differences of opinions then I do believe that the best they can do is keep out of activities which are based exactly on the exchanging of different opinions.

Re:On balance

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what does that make me, then?
I am anti-Israel because I am opposed to their constant violation of basic human right as well as fact that no one can criticize them without being labeled as anti-semitic, and I am anti-Islam because I am not to keen on being blown up by some retard who believes in his mistranslated 72 virgins (the rest of their religion is retarded as well, even worse than Christianity).
Stupid fuckers, the lot of them.

And

[bluegreenone]

And who could forget #26, the remarkable story of ______ _______ _ __ ______ _____ ____ _____ _________. I personally was shocked and amazed when I heard that one, and am glad the government didn't manage to stop the word from getting out.
...
NJ Transit, PATH train schedules online

Re:And

[Anonymous Coward]

...
NJ Transit, PATH train schedules online

Sigs don't belong in the main comment. Slashdot provides a signature box on your user page. Your comment will then have the sig attached, thus allowing people to disable viewing it.

Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why...

[JAB Creations]

Remember the evil Soviet Union with the evil communists we used to be so uptight about? We're becoming just like them. Cultural Marxism has been here for a long while now and you can scream the race card but if Jews didn't own and control the media then they wouldn't be the ones at fault. Five blacks brutally murder, rape, and do unspeakable acts. When Imus made a comment (that was taken out of context) you but you didn't know what had happened you could swear the media reacted like he had raped fifty black women. Yet this story never saw the day of light... PDF - http://www.natallnews.com/images/teaser/Knoxville_ Murders_NA.pdf and a website... http://www.channonchristian.com/ Tell me that's not worthy news? Of course cultural Marxism is against whites (specifically the white male) claiming classes degenerate society.

What an Amazing Pile of Liberal Bullshit

[quakeaddict]

none of this stuff was censored....half of these stories were spouted by Rosie on "the View"....which says ALOT.

Interesting to read since its old...

[Gybrwe666]

This thing appears to be 2-3 years old. So after reading a bit, it is interesting to compare their projections on some of these to the reality.

I have to second the thought that many of these were dreamed up by zealots.

However, at least one of them is easily challengable on facts, without quoting anything.

Take a deep look at #17. History (at least the 1+ years since the article was written) has proven that the oil companies have not yet benefitted from Iraq (and may never). The profits of the oil companies are a direct result of them avoiding R&D and, most importantly, strenuously avoiding the upgrade and replacement of aging infrastructure *WITHIN* the US. The reason oil prices are high is because our stateside refineries are a mess. Its supply and demand, but it has little to nothing to do with OPEC.

This is something the oil companies can/could/have done without ever invading Iraq. In fact, its been going on since Clinton was in office, if not before. Linking oil company profits to Bush is at best ludicrous.

I'd recommend taking a close look at these "articles". If any of them are comparable to #17, I'd have to say that the entire site is suspect.

Bill

Re:Interesting to read since its old...

[dbcad7]

Although the refinery problem contributes, lets take a look at the math...

I buy a product for x dollars, package it, mark it up 10 percent, and resell it.

when x = 30.00 (say per barrel)
x*.10 = 3.00 (final product 33.00) profit = 3.00

when x = 60.00
x*.10 = 6.00 (final product 66.00) profit = 6.00

In the particular case of oil, it is to the benifit of the oil companies that the price per barrel is high.
Now, it is possible that they are nice people and don't mark up by percentage, but instead say "we just want to make 3.00 a barrel no matter what it costs"... umm yeah right.

Wayne Madsen?

[wytcld]

For accuracy and truth on Central Africa, look to people like ... Wayne Madsen

As a sometime reader of the lefty blogs, I can recall dozens of times where people would reference stories by Wayne Madsen about nefarious conspiracies on which the evidence was just about to publicly emerge, and on which he had unrivaled sources, he claimed. The thing is, with every single one of these his reporting turned out to be bunk. He's a good writer, in the sense that his stories are self-consistent and often also fit well with better-sourced reports elsewhere, but he always steps beyond the known into stuff that in retrospect he just makes up. It's the sort of fiction that people on the left are prone to believe, since it fits generally with the more paranoid edge of our worldview. But the man's an embarrassment.

So, yeah, underlying the claims about all of these "censored" stories (all of which are out there - nothing was new to me among them - but sure they deserve more coverage and analysis than they get) are people credulous enough to believe Wayne Madsen. Sad!

wow, just wow

[Anonymous Coward]

you are a perfect example of what's wrong with the world. Instead of trying to figure out a solution to a problem, you rather choose sides even if the side you choose is doing something evil. And what's worse, you try to IGNORE the problem, attack the "supposed" opposition, and finally dumb down the arguments in an attempt to dismiss the problem.

Grow up. The sooner people stop taking sides, the faster the world would become a better place. Stop thinking "I'm a republican" or "I'm a democrat", and start thinking "I'm a human being, and what these people are doing is wrong".

Re:wow, just wow

[ScentCone]

Grow up. The sooner people stop taking sides, the faster the world would become a better place.

Such delicious (and I presume, unintentional) irony on your part. Can't you see that the GP is pointing out that the compilers of the list ARE taking a side? They are deliberately hyping things in a way to make them as divisive as possible. You're ragging on EXACTLY the wrong person. Grow up, indeed!

Re:wow, just wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh, alright then. Suppose I agree with you. So what have the "democrats" done LAST YEAR(2006) on an internation/national scale that merits censorship?

Re:wow, just wow

[ScentCone]

Ugh, alright then. Suppose I agree with you. So what have the "democrats" done LAST YEAR(2006) on an internation/national scale that merits censorship?

You're still asking the wrong question! I THINK you mean to ask, what have the dems done (or not done) that we should consider newsworthy, but which is being glossed over or ignored? The word "censorship" is, by the way, completely incorrect in this context.

As for the dems: I think it's newsworthy that despite campaigning on the promise to rid the congress of corruption and the appearance of any unethical carrying-on, that Pelosi chose to put the congressman from Louisiana, freshly caught with $90k of marked bribe CASH in his freezer, on the homeland security oversight committee. On the same note, I think that it's appalling that right in the middle the fuss about how to try to pressure the administration to pull troops out of Iraq, that her granting of completely absurd add-on pork (spinach subsidies, peanut storage funding, etc) to buy more votes for the doomed-to-be-vetoed-but-still-posturing legislation (written just months after an election during which votes were solicited with promises that there would be no more pork) went widely unexamined in the media. Essentially: the press, which largely supports the dems, stays well away from pointing out the blatant lies and hypocrisy coming from the very party that just swore they'd do no such thing.

Hell, what was one of the biggest promises from Pelosi about the first actions she'd take? Following ALL of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations. Of course, what was the first recommendation they decided to completely ignore? The one that called for reorganizing the defense and intelligence oversight committes in congress... in a way that would loosen some democrat control in those areas. Where's the press coverage of that sort of thing? It's no more "censored" than the stuff that the article's rant is about - it's just about what the press either largely ignores, or finds that their audience will probably ignore.

Re:wow, just wow

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point. Who cares if this list has a bias toward a particular political group, it doesn't change the fact that American media choose to ignore some important news. When I compare CNN, ABC and other American media with the BBC, Al Jazeera, Le Monde... It's pretty clear to me that American media are among the worst. Better than The Pravda, but not by much.

BTW, I am not American and I don't care about this republican/democrat bias. This dichotomy is irrelevant to me. The only thing I see is "Americans". Maybe this list is unfair to a particular group of Americans, maybe this list has a hidden political agenda, but this does not change the (claimed) point and it does not invalidate the stories presented. My turn to say it : Grow up and stop being self-centered.

Re:wow, just wow

[Anonymous Coward]

You've just fallen for Scentcone's misdirection. He wants to turn this into a debate over whether Republicans or Democrats are worse. He wants you to forget that we were talking about warrantless wiretapping, suspects being tortured to death, universal government corruption, and corporate censorship of related news stories. These are things he'd rather not discuss, because he actually supports them (as shown by his posting history) and he knows the only way to win that argument is to sidetrack the debate.

Don't fall for it. The Democratic party sucks and the Republican party sucks, but that doesn't mean torturing suspects magically becomes "good."

Re:wow, just wow

[ScentCone]

These are things he'd rather not discuss, because he actually supports them (as shown by his posting history) and he knows the only way to win that argument is to sidetrack the debate.

The reason we're not discussing them in this thread is because... that's not what we're talking about. The FIRST thing we should be talking about is the absurd use of the word "censorship" in TFA and the summary. But even if we provide for the most generous and hysterical use of that word, failing to care enough about something to assign reporters to it and burn up newsprint/airtime/homepage-area ABOUT it isn't "censorship." It's: "not caring." The notion that somehow coverage of tracking call patterns and monitoring those with an international end to them wasn't covered in the news is... laughable. It was all OVER the news. I think TFA's real subtext, here, is that "DESPITE the media talking about some of the things we think are important, stuff still didn't work out the way we liked, and our team, now running congress, isn't doing what we want, either."

Re:wow, just wow

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, so you're saying that is just as important as Halliburton selling nucleur technology and homeland security contacting the KBR to build detention centers? Get over yourself. I know democrats do shitty things too, but some shitty things are bigger than others.

Re:wow, just wow

[asninn]

Such delicious (and I presume, unintentional) irony on your part. Can't you see that the GP is pointing out that the compilers of the list ARE taking a side? They are deliberately hyping things in a way to make them as divisive as possible. You're ragging on EXACTLY the wrong person. Grow up, indeed!

Um, no, that's not what he's doing. The GP (or GGP, by now) sees deliberate bias when there is none, simply because he himself is biased and because the list doesn't fit his own bias.

Put another way, "reality has a well-known liberal bias". (And that comment is tongue-in-cheek insofar as that there is no actual bias, of course; it just seems that way if you're used to US-American politics.)

Re:wow, just wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Q.E.D.

Re:wow, just wow

[abb3w]

I think it's newsworthy that despite campaigning on the promise to rid the congress of corruption and the appearance of any unethical carrying-on, that Pelosi chose to put the congressman from Louisiana, freshly caught with $90k of marked bribe CASH in his freezer, on the homeland security oversight committee.

Not really; since the idiot reorg that created Homeland Security put FEMA under it, and since Katrina still hasn't been cleaned up, putting the Louisiana Democrat from 'Nawlins on the committee makes sense, even if he is a crook.

Now, not screaming about why he isn't being investigated harder... that's a bit more iffy, as is the lack of the intelligence committee reorg you also pointed out.

Uneven quality

[Belacgod]

The writing in some of the middle ones borders on conspiracy-theory crazy--"If you are reading the mainstream newspapers or listening to National Public Radio, you are contributing to your own mental illness, no matter how astute you believe yourself to be at "balancing" or "deciphering" the code" from the one about Congo. Many of these are important and swept under the rug, but many others are just these guys' pet issues, and their ideologies blind them to the shakiness of their claims. In short, yes we know the MSM only covers things that they deem exciting. Yes, the average person never hears about lots of important things. No, these 25 are no more the "top 25 censored stories" than the "top 10 dead computer languages" from a few days ago were really the top 10 dead computer languages.

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why.

[CaffeineAddict2001]

Oh puh-leese.

What's interesting is that a pretty white couple gets raped and that is what sets you off. Had this couple been black you wouldn't give a damn.

Anytime a pretty white girl goes missing the media has feeding frenzy. Black girls go missing all the time and you won't see a single story about it. To insinuate that whites are being robbed of justice because of "Cultural Marxism" is completely retarded.

List is VERY hit and miss

[DumbSwede]

Some of these stories have merit, some are exaggerated, and some are spun to make America look bad because private industries have commercial interests in turbulent regions of the world. I see no evidence that the 9-11 conspiracy theory has been "censored." US celebrities like Rosie O'Donnel and Sean Penn bring this one up all the time. Just like you can find the strange stray biologist that supports creationism, this camp has found one stray physicist to support this conspiracy crap. By including it in the list just shows the list on whole to be an agenda disguised as journalism by pandering to a left leaning fan base.

Now before I'm attacked as a right wing kook, let me say I tend to be a liberal on social issues, and think there are plenty of stories that need more attention when it comes to social fairness. But just because people yawn or don't believe you, doesn't mean you are being censored. I'd say about half of this list is the proponents just being crybabies that the public (rightly or wrongly) doesn't care more. Maybe the authors should find irrefutable evidence for their assertions or write in more challenging ways that defies being ignored.

Re:List is VERY hit and miss

[Scrameustache]

I see no evidence that the 9-11 conspiracy theory has been "censored." US celebrities like Rosie O'Donnel and Sean Penn bring this one up all the time. discredit
Pronunciation: (")dis-'kre-d&t
Function: transitive verb
1 : to refuse to accept as true or accurate : DISBELIEVE
2 : to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of

Rosie O'Donnel is a fat tub of stupid. Any theory she ascribes to sounds dubious by association.

I say "Screw it"

[PHAEDRU5]

What I lose on the anti-global warming posts, I make up on Simpons-based cracks.

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why.

[JAB Creations]

Typical tactics of those who think they are in the right but are not. This story is a clear cut case of black-on-white hate crime. Cultural-Marxists and their supporters (such as you) will use the power of suggestion to downplay what happened. I think your opinion would change if someone poured bleach down your throat and set you on fire to cover up their crimes after already having cut off parts of your body and raped you.

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why.

[dreddnott]

Oh, so we control the media, eh? Red Sea pedestrians run the world? So where's my bag of Jew Gold? Where's my direct line to Zion Command? When do I get to lord it over the goyim? It's my birthright, after all!

"Western" meaning China and Russia...

[cirby]

...in the Congo story, at least.

Generally, "Project Censored" relies on people believing whatever they suggest, and not realizing that most of the reason people ignored those stories was that they were, well, just plain wrong.

Re:"Western" meaning China and Russia...

[Beetle B.]

Only China and Russia?

Care to back it up? Everything I've read implicates tech companies in Europe and/or US. If you have information to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

And besides, even if it does not include the "West", is it not as newsworthy? More people have died in this conflict than in any other since WW2. We make a big fuss about Darfur, but not the Congo. Is it because we care more for them? Sudanese lives are more valuable? Or because it conveniently furthers the ideology of some?

Re:"Western" meaning China and Russia...

[Yvanhoe]

Yeah, Chinese factories or partners of Intel or Motorola.

But I agree, "Western world" is not synonymous of "industrialized world" anymore.

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anytime a pretty white girl goes missing the media has feeding frenzy. Black girls go missing all the time and you won't see a single story about it. To insinuate that whites are being robbed of justice because of "Cultural Marxism" is completely retarded.
" ------------------- Hey dumbshit did you not read what was written? The media never reported this and when a black is down on his/her luck here come the Dynamic Duo, Jesse Jackson and the boy wonder Al Sharpton calling the race card and up in arms! Blacks have for so many years scream injustice and unfair treatment but now they are dishes out exactly what they have bitched about for years. All i have to say is grow the fuck up! Oh and i do not have time to waste by signing up for this bullshit comment site. My name is Jamie and i am not coward and here is my email address OneGravenKiss@aim.com so feel free to humor me with your blind bullshit.

These aren't censored.

[Bongo Bill]

We're reading them now, aren't we?

Re:These aren't censored.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Techies are not relevant. Techies who actually use the Internet as their primary news source make up less than a percent of the population. While people could argue that thanks to the almighty web no information can ever be truly censored, in practice that doesn't matter. Perhaps getting people to avoid looking for information is the smartest method of censorship ;-)
And oh, this list sucks. Now there are important stories out there that should be told, much more so than whatever new diet some celebrity is trying, but the list posted would possibly not be the very best source for those.

We, the people...

[Anonymous Coward]

A natural language is defined through common use. If you don't like it, move to France, where even this simple fact is fought tooth and nail.

Your attempt at humor falls flat.

[PHAEDRU5]

You don't make me laugh. Work on it.

Re:Your attempt at humor falls flat.

[Sunburnt]

You don't make me laugh. Work on it.

Aww, and I was trying so hard to amuse you, as opposed to others who might have read your post and thought, "Wow, what an idiot you'd have to be thinking of /. as a "leftist" site, given its typical libertarian tone and the large number of posts critical of this particular article."

Re:Your attempt at humor falls flat.

[megaditto]

I thought it was pretty funny. That other 668 girl might suffer from the spanish micro-penis syndrome (I forgot the name due too much beer during med school, sorry).

Forgive my ignorance.

[PHAEDRU5]

I've not been here for the entire ride.

End of the year already?

[noidentity]

December 31, 2007 called: it wants its story headline back.

Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone

[Bayoudegradeable]

Censored?? The Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico has been getting GREAT coverage every year from the Times Picayune. Check nola.com sometime this summer and you will find the annual report on the Dead Zone. The problem with the Dead Zone is NOT coverage, the problem is that no farm state congress rep/Senator would EVER work to stop this problem as it would be way too costly to the farmers. Controlling fertilzer=higher costs for Billy Bob Tractor Jockey and increased costs would mean lost votes for the congress folks that voted to conrol such substances...Thanks middle America. Don't come crying when Gulf seafood is wiped out because of your grain fertilizer.

Re:Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone

[F34nor]

Um sorry abut this is far broader issue than a dead zone. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/0 4/0311214

HEY LOOK I SUMBITTED THAT ONE! Go F34nor its your birthday, go F34nor!

Thanks for the comment.

[PHAEDRU5]

Obviously your propaganda feed is a little different from my news feed.

Dear PHEDRU5

[twitter]

The concerns mentioned by Vexorian are everyone's problems. They matter and people do care. The kind of person that does not care is not reading or watching the news anyway, so the news might as well carry something more important that Paris Hilton and Britny Spears gossip. People who care about that can get what they want at the supermarket check out. Public broadcasters and other users of public servitude are supposed to serve the public interest. Newspapers swear they do the same. Yet all of these channels are filled with bullshit made by people who would like to do to the internet what they did to it in China. If they get away with it, you won't know the difference again.

Botch's definition of censorship

[Harmonious Botch]

It takes three parties to have censorship. One that wants to transmit, one that wants to receive, and a third party that forcibly prevents the transmission.

The most common misuse of the word is when some third party that could assist in the transmission chooses not to do so. This is not censorship, this is non-participation. It only rises to censorship if the third party has control over all of the communication channels that could be used.

You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to an audience.

Re:Botch's definition of censorship

[Sibko]

The most common misuse of the word is when some third party that could assist in the transmission chooses not to do so. This is not censorship, this is non-participation. It only rises to censorship if the third party has control over all of the communication channels that could be used. Ahh, I think I understand; It's only censorship if you never hear about it.

Re:Botch's definition of censorship

[Scrameustache]

It only rises to censorship if the third party has control over all of the communication channels that could be used. Find me a credible source for that definition.
I warn you though, it's not what the word actually means, so you'll have a hard time finding one that isn't from some random nut. You might want to accept that you have misunderstood what censorship is, after a few dictionaries tell you you're wrong.

Re:Botch's definition of censorship

[Harmonious Botch]

Ahh, I think I understand; It's only censorship if you never hear about it Yes. Or to be precise: It's only successful censorship if you never hear about it

Re:Botch's definition of censorship

[Harmonious Botch]

It takes three parties to have censorship. One that wants to transmit, one that wants to receive, and a third party that forcibly prevents the transmission.

The most common misuse of the word is when some third party that could assist in the transmission chooses not to do so. This is not censorship, this is non-participation. It only rises to censorship if the third party has control over all of the communication channels that could be used.

You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to an audience. Find me a credible source for that definition.
I warn you though, it's not what the word actually means, so you'll have a hard time finding one that isn't from some random nut. You might want to accept that you have misunderstood what censorship is, after a few dictionaries tell you you're wrong. I fear that you may have missed the thrust of my original post. I didn't label it "Commonly accepted definition of censorship" or "Webster's definition of censorship"; I labeled it "Botch's definition of censorship", thereby implying that it is not most people's definition.

Yes, I can read a dictionary. And, yes, you are perfectly correct, any dictionary would offer a definition different from mine. Any current dictionary.
But check a dictionary from pre-WWII - or any dictionary dating back to ancient Rome - and you'll get a completely different view. In most places and most times thoughout history censorship was understood to be absolute suppresion of information.
If you want a credible source, look at a 1933 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary ( way too long to quote here )

The term 'censorship' is derived from the Roman office of 'censor'. A censor was charged with the protection of public morals. To excercise censorship was to be able to eradicate any idea from the public sphere. They regarded it much the way that we regard the eradication of communicable diseases. Allowing even one vector to spread a disease is a failure. All disease vectors have to be stopped. It is this absolute nature of censorship that our modern definition has lost.

The whole point of my original post is that the commonly used definition is a bad one. Once we allow for a non-absolute definition ( ie: one in which partial limitation is considered censorship ) we are on a slippery slope. Then any limitation of your speech can be considered censorship. If I turn off my computer without reading your post, that is censorship. If I mod you down, that is censorship.
Lani Guinier ( of Clinton SCOTUS nomination fame ) even went so far as to claim that freedom of speech meant that the government had to supply an audience. That, BTW, was what the "You don't have a right to an audience" was referring to.

We live in a time with unprecedented freedom off speech and press ( despite the efforts of the current administration. ) Our culture seems to have forgoton what censorship really was, and uses a water-down version that is so weak that it eventually means nothing.

Re:Botch's definition of censorship

[Scrameustache]

The term 'censorship' is derived from the Roman office of 'censor'. A censor was charged with the protection of public morals. To excercise censorship was to be able to eradicate any idea from the public sphere. They regarded it much the way that we regard the eradication of communicable diseases. Allowing even one vector to spread a disease is a failure. All disease vectors have to be stopped. It is this absolute nature of censorship that our modern definition has lost. The romans didn't have telecommunications.

These are not just academic exercises. We're not analyzing the media on Mars, or in the 18th century, or something like that. We're dealing with real human beings who are suffering and dying and being tortured and starving, because of policies that we are involved in - we as citizens of democratic societies are directly involved in and responsible for. And what the media are doing is ensuring that we do not act on our responsibilities, and that the interests of power are served, not the interests of suffering people and not the needs of the American people who would be horrified if they realized the blood that's dripping from their hands because of the way they're allowing themselves to be deluded and manipulated by the system.
-- Noam Chomsky

More primitive societies saw the need to suppress all sources of information. But you don't need to find all the people who know something you don't want getting out. You can simply make sure that they are ignored, that works just as well.

Re:Botch's definition of censorship

[Harmonious Botch]

I can't disagree with anything that you or Mr. Chompsky said. And I agree with you that it's important. Maybe important enough to have its own word or phrase.
I want to save the word 'censorship' for describing the possible event that really is old-styte forcible and complete suppresion of information. Right now, if Bush & co resorted to doing it, it could be labeled censorship and nobody would even notice.
Sixty years ago censorship was a powerful word. I want to restore it.

Re:Botch's definition of censorship

[Scrameustache]

Sixty years ago censorship was a powerful word. I want to restore it. You show that windmill who's boss! ;-)

But I would try to use qualifiers instead, "hard censorship" VS "soft censorship", or something akin to that. You can't escape the brave new definition. And more to the point, you shouldn't. Burying a news story with noise (check the dates) isn't the same thing as destroying the people who report the story, but in the grand scheme of things, the result is the same. If they could destroy the people to keep their info hidden, they would, but since it would only attract attention (or those people are out of their reach), they get a diversionary tactic going instead to achieve the desired result: Suppression of information.

That's why I defend the "diluted" use of the word, because I think it's just as bad, fundamentally.

Censorhip, new definition

[PHAEDRU5]

"When nobody else is worried about your obsessions."

Re:Censorhip, new definition

[bbhack]

Bravo.

I like your wit.

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why.

[Kelz]

I don't think he'd have much of an opinion if that happened since he'd be dead.

Fancy vocabulary but no real substance here. Plus you post a link to a white supremacist holocaust-denying anti-semitic website to prove your claims. Sorry.

Beware of the company you keep

[vrmlguy]

I agree that Net Neutrality hasn't had as much coverage as it deserves, but has anyone read the rest of the list?

If you are reading the mainstream newspapers or listening to National Public Radio, you are contributing to your own mental illness, no matter how astute you believe yourself to be at "balancing" or "deciphering" the code.

Keith Harmon Snow, you lost me with this paragraph. I don't think many people will catargorize misinformation as mental illness. And what's up with the qoutes around "balancing" and "deciphering"? Just because someone is (in your opinion) unable to do something doesn't turn their efforts into some sort of deceitful act.

But breaking international and domestic law has not been a concern of an administration led by a "president" who has claimed "authority" to disobey over 750 laws passed by Congress.

Dahr Jamail, you've got quote problems as well. Like it or not, Shrub *is* the president, and saying the word "authority" in a funny, quavery, voice with a flashlight held under your chin isn't going to impress anyone.

Sorry, Project Censored, I'm sure you're trying to make positive changes in the world, but I've given up on reading the rest of the article. You causes may be valid, but please don't act like fruitcakes when you try to make your points.

I am gay !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now Censor That! I dare ya !!!

It's not censorship...

[StealthyRoid]

If it's not censored. That "mainstream" media news outlets didn't spend all year trumpeting these stories from the rooftops does not mean that there was any censorship. No one was _prevented_ from talking about them, as the article itself proves. People did talk about them, and wrote things about them.
Also, you should probably title this article "Top 25 Articles the Left Wanted the Media to Spend a Billion Hours On". I mean, come on, like 25% of the stories are ZOMFG CHENEY HALLIBURTON comments, including the "#2" story of the year by Jason Leopold, who has time and time again been proven a liar and a disreputable source as a journalist. The other stories are a mixture of internationalism and environmentalism. You _really_ mean to say that the top 25 "censored" stories of the year just magically happen to be about things that only Leftists give a shit about?
What about the confiscation of guns by authorities post-Katrina? You know, where the cops went by the houses of law-abiding citizens and demanded their guns at a time when looting and violence were at their peak? Nobody in the MSM talked about that. Or how about the 19 year old Iranian girl sentenced to death because she fought off one of her attempted rapists? Or the other Iranian girls who have been sentenced and executed for being whores after they were raped? Bleh.

Re:It's not censorship...

[YrWrstNtmr]

M. P. U.

I can see a couple of reasons...

[Eric Damron]

The really important thing to remember is that almost all of our "news" providers are owned by a couple of mega corporations.

There is probably some censorship going on because of this. i.e. They won't air anything that will hurt their bottom line or upset their benefactors. But I think mostly its that as corporations do, they try to do everything on the cheap. It's much cheaper to get a few fluff stories and run them everywhere than it is to do real journalism.

I remember a time before all of the TV stations were owned by a few corporations and each station had news people who would investigate and compete with other stations for the best story. Now it's all just spoon fed to them.

As a society we are poorer because of corporate greed.

Dear twitter...

[PHAEDRU5]

My remarks to Vexorian apply to you as well.

Oh, I know you'd love to establish a slave society where you could ride above it all, commanding obedience from those less politically evolved than you. I'm afraid, however, that you live in a world where pretty much everyone in the US is fat, dumb, happy, and wonderously well over-fed, and likes it that way.

There are a number of lesons to take from this.

1. Don't get between an American and the American's food bowl.

2. Don't disturb the American's food bowl.

3. Don't bother the American, CSI is playing.

Do any or all of these long enough, and we will nuke you.

I mean, we're all about the pursuit of happiness.

Leave us alone, and the 5% of us that are intellectuals will dazzle you and the world.

China is what it is because of grim leftists like you. America is what it is because of happy epicureans like Belushi.

I prefer Belushi to you. You're a little too pinched.

Did you know that arrestees worldwide now demand their Miranda rights?

Re:Dear twitter...

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Maybe we should get you two your own thread, 'cause none of the rest of us know what the hell you're talking about.

Try some humor...

[PHAEDRU5]

Forget actual facts, this is /..

Instead, spice up your remarks with vulgarity, ad hominems, and Simpsons extracts.

You'll be posting with Excellent karma in no time.

Re:Try some humor...

[neomunk]

Careful now, your jackboots are showing.

Mainstream media like simple, scary issues

[ConfusedSelfHating]

Like killer bees. People know what bees are. People don't want to be stung by bees. You then put a fancy title on it: "Killer Bees Spread NORTHWARD!" and you have a perfect story for the evening news. It's even better when you imply that the watcher's children are in danger: "Pervo Bees in a van try to pick up kids outside a school!". And then imply it may be the school that the watcher's children go to. If all else fails, start making it sexy news: "Special Report: Is Cheerleading the first step to STRIPPING? Is your daughter at risk? Are the killer bees involved? We ask several young cheerleaders if they feel pressured to take their clothes off. And what sort of pressure would be required to get them naked. Film at eleven."

Re:Mainstream media like simple, scary issues

[Anonymous Coward]

"Special Report: Is Cheerleading the first step to STRIPPING? Is your daughter at risk? Are the killer bees involved? We ask several young cheerleaders if they feel pressured to take their clothes off. And what sort of pressure would be required to get them naked. Film at eleven."

Link please. K thx.

not really censored

[belmolis]

I agree that many of these issue deserve more attention than they have received, though it isn't clear whether that is because the news agencies aren't interested or because they have correctly judged that people aren't all that interested. These stories have not been censored in the usual sense of the word. They are, and have been, out there.

Some of the choices are also odd. Why is World Bank funding for the Israel/West Bank wall big news? The wall itself is well known, and the central issue from every point of view is whether it should be built, not who funds it or how it is funded. It's not like there is some sort of scandal over the funding. The issues are whether or not it is a good security measure for Israel, whether or not it improperly infringes on Arab land, and whether or not it is improper because it would impose "apartheid". None of these issues has anything to do with whether the World Bank is involved in the funding.

The characterization of this wall as the "apartheid wall" also demonstrates clear bias on the part of the Sonoma State people. One can argue about the other issues, that this wall has anything to do with "apartheid" is idiotic. It has no more to do with apartheid than the boundary fences on the borders of most countries, only it is more justified since Israel is under constant terrorist attack. If Israel were interested in apartheid, it would not have allowed hundreds of thousands of Arabs to become citizens and to live all over the country. The people who want to impose apartheid are the Arabs, who can't stand the idea of Jews living anywhere in the Mideast.

Re:not really censored

[JRGhaddar]

Well I hate to break it to you and the truth may be hard for you to swallow, but this issue that you describe as " It has no more to do with apartheid than the boundary fences on the borders of most countries" is ridiculous.

Watch this and then argue for it, but watch ALL of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjEq2dYF6lw

President Carter also wrote the following book Palestine Peace not Apartheid. I suggest you read that as well. This is a man who has dedicated his life to trying to aid those in need.

The fact that you glance over this topic shows the evident bias on your opinion of anything concerning Israel, and the ubelieveable statement "The people who want to impose apartheid are the Arabs, who can't stand the idea of Jews living anywhere in the Mideast." Makes me absolutely sick. Did you know that there were jews living in Israel before the 1st Zionist Congress met? Did you know they didn't even speak hebrew? Did you know that they lived in all current Arab nations and owned businesses in those Arab countries? Your lack of education on the subject matter, hasty generalization of an entire race of people, and evident racism is what is making the problems we have today in the world worse.

I don't wish any ill malice on any Jewish person anywhere in the world, but the differnce between you and I is that I also don't wish any ill malice on any palestinian either. And whether you personally want to come to the realization that ALL people are equal and ALL people deserve to be free from oppression is up to you.

Re:not really censored

[Zebai]

Im sorry but anything that comes out of the mouth of Jimmy Carter is complete bull. The man spends his entire post presidential life trying to undermine the united states foreign policy, not just with our current administration, but every single one since he left office. He frequently speaks with and works actively to promote and encourage the well being and security of countries that have declared themselves enemies of the west and that of the United States. And not only that, but himself, and many others, including Clinton, are on the payroll of the U A E and are completely biased against any issue concerning islamic nations, since they have a personal financial gain from them gaining power. Personally I dont like jews, but when it comes to Israel, i believe they should nuke palastine and iran and push THEM off into the ocean. I think this wall would be the best thing for their country and I have great respect for a people who live in such a dangerous area where everyone on every border wants to see you die.

Re:not really censored

[JRGhaddar]

Wow... seriously you need some professional counciling. Your opinion about Carter is fine. You can are entitled to your own belief on his agenda although I completely disagree with, but the most disturbing part of your comment was

" Personally I dont like jews, but when it comes to Israel, i believe they should nuke palastine and iran and push THEM off into the ocean. I think this wall would be the best thing for their country and I have great respect for a people who live in such a dangerous area where everyone on every border wants to see you die."

Jewish people are good people. That was a very racist comment about jews, and you need to reevaluate your position about the Jewish people as a whole. Certain ones carry there own elite fanatical agenda which is the root of the problem today, but under no circumstances do they represent ALL Jewish people. In fact there are MANY Jewish people who speak out against Israeli policy and unortunately are dubbed as "self hating jews" by the zealous fanatics I meantioned earlier. It is important to identify and confront those zealots but not liking an entire race/religion for the acts of few is ridiculous.

Your belief that they should nuke palestine and Iran only illustrates further your complete disregard for humanity in general. Violence is not the answer to any of these problems, and to even suggest a nuclear attack puts you in the same catergory as radical islam in that you both see mass destruction of civilians as a way to solve problems.

" I think this wall would be the best thing for their country and I have great respect for a people who live in such a dangerous area where everyone on every border wants to see you die."

Everyone on the border doesn't want to see them die everyone on the border themself doesn't want to die, face economic strangulation, denial of basic resouces (water), denial of citizenship, barred freedom to visit there families, and destruction of there own homes.

This whitewashing of the Palestinians is a huge problem and the media is partly to blame. Do you know ANY palestinians? You'll find that they are humans just like you and I and want the basic human rights that we take for granted everyday.

Raids on Palestinian homes the slaying of women and children in gaza all can easily be considered terrorists acts. by terrorism I mean

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. "

And there have been several Terrorist organizations in Israel against Arabs

http://atheism.about.com/library/world/AJ/bl_Israe lTerror.htm

This situation is very complicated, and it will only work itself out if everyone owns up that everyone has made grave mistakes. I hope that you reevaluate your positions about Arabs and Jews because it is only going to make it harder for a peaceful resolution to be reached.

Re:not really censored

[pygm]

Indeed, they were jews in 'palestine' (which was never a country, but a Trans-Jordanian region) before the State of Israel. There was no jewish independence, jewish majority. No war of '67 or '74 nor any 'wall'. In the '20s and '30s, countless massacres occured on the jewish population of Jaffa, Hebron and Safed in which man, women and children were slaughtered, raped and killed. These were not ordinary civil disorders, but were truly massacres. See here and here. So yes, there were jews there, but they didn't live very well. Let us not forget that the Mufti Al-Hussaini, grand-Mufti of Jerusalem was a personal friend of Adolf Hitler. See here. Now, this was long before any israeli 'occupation', 'apartheid' or so-called 'terrorism'. But still, the hatred was already present. Before 1967, when the Arab states after seeing their defeat started to sponsor guerilla-terrorism against Israel, there was no talk about a 'Land of Palestine'. It never existed. Palestine is the name of a region, formerly a part of Trans-Jordania. Palestinians (name originates from the ancient Philistines) have never had a national entity. They have no common history, no valuta and no culture. They actually do, but these are all respectively Syrian, Lebanese, Egyptian or Jordanian. The hate against 'the jew' did not breed from Israel's presence, it was there long before. Yes, jews owned businesses in Arab countries, but they lived there as dhymmies, second-rate citizens (as were Christians). They had to pay extra taxes and were obliged to bow when a muslem passed them in the street. Please, try to update your own knowledge of history before accusing others. See here. Instead of accusing Israel of all troubles. Israel, which is the first one at each peace talk, which tries in every way to hold to its democratic values (find one country which held itself so democratic when suffering so much terror). Israel, which actually respects all of humanity. Everyone from every religion is welcome (try to enter Mecca as a Christian). All gay people are welcome (should we look how they are treated in Israel's 35 neighbouring Muslem countries?). I could go on. The fact that the 'wall' would cover much of Palestinian land is simply not true. I have been there and have taken an organized tour of the security fence. The fence was not built to separate Palestinians, but merely for security purposes. The video on YouTube is full of factual errors. First of all, comparison with the Berlin Wall is out of the question. The Berlin Wall was built to separate people, in this case it was built to not let terrorists in. But while we are complaining about walls, let's observe another wall. The wall the United Stated has built on the border with Mexico (a country of which it does not suffer terror from), five times the size of the West Bank barrier. This is apparently totally acceptable. See here. And to be exact, we shouldn't even call this barrier a 'Wall'. The actual critical parts which consist of a concrete wall are a mere 10% of the entire length. And the fact that the World Bank financed this barrier, well, they should be proud of it. They have probably saved many lives with that gesture. Since this barrier was built in 2002, there have only been few suicide terror attacks, compared to attacks on a daily base before.

Re:not really censored

[makomk]

Interesting, but you could at least have linked to the parent article. I hadn't heard about that particular event, probably because it doesn't reflect well on either the Muslims or the Zionists. (You also have to bear in mind that this was after Britain promised to create a Jewish "national home" in Palestine.) The whole thing is depressing, but don't think it couldn't happen in a country near you (and probably not involving Arabs, either).

Re:not really censored

[JRGhaddar]

"Indeed, they were jews in 'palestine' (which was never a country, but a Trans-Jordanian region) before the State of Israel. "
This is true it was called the British Mandate of PALESTINE. That's where the name comes from.

"There was no jewish independence, jewish majority. No war of '67 or '74 nor any 'wall'. In the '20s and '30s, countless massacres occured on the jewish population of Jaffa, Hebron and Safed in which man, women and children were slaughtered, raped and killed"

There was no independence for the Arabs living with in the country either. Numerous jewish immigrants can pouring in to the region (some illegally, some legeally) and were putting strain on the local people. Some people resorted to violence to deal with the immigrants taking over land, and that was wrong, but as I stated there were lots of illegal immigrants comming into palestine, and that was a tremendous sore spot for the palestinians. Though there had already been Arab protests to the Ottoman authorities in the 1880s against land sales to foreign Jews, the most serious opposition began in the 1890s after the full scope of the Zionist enterprise became known. This opposition did not arise out of Palestinian nationalism, which was in its infancy at the time, but out of a sense of threat to the livelihood of the Arabs. This sense was heightened in the early years of the 20th century by the Zionist attempts to develop an economy from which Arab people were largely excluded, such as the "Hebrew labor" movement that campaigned against the employment of Arabs. The severing of Palestine from the rest of the Arab world in 1918 and the Balfour Declaration were seen by the Arabs as proof that their fears were coming to fruition.

Here is a map of the peel commision you can see the original drawing for the British Manadate of Palestine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Peel_map_pd.png

You can note that it looks VERY different from today. And Although this was vetoed by BOTH Arabs and Zionists. It shows in effect the territory of the people living in the region.

"Please, try to update your own knowledge of history before accusing others" I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am bring transparency and truth to this issue. Something that is sorely lacking in the western world.

"Israel, which actually respects all of humanity. Everyone from every religion is welcome (try to enter Mecca as a Christian). All gay people are welcome (should we look how they are treated in Israel's 35 neighbouring Muslem countries?). I could go on"

Why is Israel the ONLY country IN THE WORLD that is using its military to occupy land, and then anex that land. It's a direct violation of the geneva convention?

Why does Israel stand in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council Resolutions?

That in Hebron, 85% of the water is given to about 400 settlers,while 15%must be divided among Hebron's 120,000 Palestinians?

Israel doesn't respect humanity. There are thousands upon thousands of examples of this. I believe the israeli people are good people, but the government's policies towards Arabs is racist and not only creates suffering, but uses American dollars to do it.

The Berlin Wall was built to separate people.

And so is this one. That's what Walls do they seperate people, but this wall seperates families, cuts off water supplies, divides farmland, and economicly stangulates these people.

"And the fact that the World Bank financed this barrier, well, they should be proud of it. They have probably saved many lives with that gesture. "

and here is where your racism is evidently clear. Whether you want to admit it or not. You believe that Jewish/Western blood is more valuable and woth saving than that of Palestinians. I don't want a single Jewish child in Israel harm, but the differnce between you and I is that I don't with harm on a single Palestinian child either.

Jewish people can have

Re:not really censored

[pygm]

Funny you should bring up UN Resolutions. Let's look at the first UN Resolution concerning the Middle East. It states that the State of Israel has the right to exist. This is the FIRST ONE, and has been rejected by ALL neighbouring Arab countries.
When they'll accept this one, we'll move on to the others.

Funny too you should talk about the Geneva Convention. I'm imagining people like you weren't screaming about Geneva Conventions last summer, when Hezbollah terrorists violated many Geneva laws of humanity, including attacking a country without any reason or warning, abducting foreign soldiers (which are still captive, by the way) and shooting missiles from densely populated living flats just to make sure civilian casualties (for which they beg) will reach the world news. Perhaps this has indeed been one of the censored issues of the year. Instead of talking about 'disproportianism', when Israel is attacking the terrorists (who happen to hide among an innocent population), why wasn't the world screaming about those who deliberately targeted civilians?

Plus, you haven't addressed my major issue. Israel doesn't want to live separately, Israel doesn't want a security fence. Israel, after more than forty years of terror, it is desperately trying to find a solution to this ongoing problem, in which its citizens are threatened daily.

It's strange. It's seemingly always the Palestinians who want peace and not the israelis. Well, I can name you hundreds of Israeli peace organization. Name me one Palestinian...

There are none. A few months ago, a group of Egyptian diplomats got together to try and find peaceful resolutions with Israel. A week later, they were all imprisoned. As a reminder, Israel has signed a peace treaty with Egypt.

You call me a racist towards the Palestinian people. You say that I value Jewish blood over Arab blood. Well, let me tell you I never did, but today I do.

Today, I see a civilization of people which are far from civilized. I see a people which does not care about human life anymore, let alone their own. I see mothers strapping TNT-bars around their little sons and daughters. I see fathers teaching their kids to hate and take them to fight at their youngest ages. I see hundreds of Middle Eastern television and radio channels promoting nothing but hate against Israel, America and Jews in general. The first words of many Palestinian children are 'Itbach al-yahud' or 'kill the jew'.
See Memri.

When I see this, a people that rejects its own right to live, I cannot help but see their blood as less. I feel so sad for all these innocent Palestinian children which are abused by their parents, their teachers and their society. I think the answer to peace is there, in their education, and not primarily with the security fence.

The security fence, whether you like it or not, has proven secure and has massively decreased terrorist attacks. Now, the fence may have harmed many Palestinians socially and it may be harder for them as they have to pass many checkpoints, but they aren't threatened to die because of that. On the other side, every day the security fance stands there, it prevents terrorists from passing to an Israeli town and blowing up families.

The only life-threatening threat Palestinians face is to be killed in a firefight in which they either didn't belong, or that was caused by internal rivalries between Fatah and Hamas. Again, for that the solution has to be found within them.

Another thing that has almost not reached the news. the Israeli town of Sderot has been the target of thousands of Kassam rockets the last five weeks and has caused tens of deaths and hundreds of injured. This, too, has not been seen of too much on the news.

Re:not really censored

[JRGhaddar]

Funny too you should talk about the Geneva Convention. I'm imagining people like you weren't screaming about Geneva Conventions last summer, when Hezbollah terrorists violated many Geneva "laws of humanity, including attacking a country without any reason or warning, abducting foreign soldiers (which are still captive, by the way) and shooting missiles from densely populated living flats just to make sure civilian casualties (for which they beg) will reach the world news. Perhaps this has indeed been one of the censored issues of the year. Instead of talking about 'disproportianism', when Israel is attacking the terrorists (who happen to hide among an innocent population), why wasn't the world screaming about those who deliberately targeted civilians?"

Bescause it was Israel that attacked Lebanon, it is Israel that illegally occupied Lebanon and imprisoned thousands of Lebanese, and it is Israel that has slayed numerous of civilians and has killed 30 times the number of civilians killed by Hezbollah. Hezbollah attacked Israeli soldiers and Israel answered by killing Lebanese civilians. INCLUDING UN SOLDIERS THAT THEY KNEW WERE THERE.

Plus, you haven't addressed my major issue. Israel doesn't want to live separately, Israel doesn't want a security fence. Israel, after more than forty years of terror, it is desperately trying to find a solution to this ongoing problem, in which its citizens are threatened daily.

I will address this below

"It states that the State of Israel has the right to exist. This is the FIRST ONE, and has been rejected by ALL neighbouring Arab countries."

Arabs rejeted this because it violated all of the work accord concerning the Peel commision and subsequent commisions before the declaration also Israel doesn't Recognize Palestinian sovereignty east jerusalem as its Capital and the borders of that country at the Pre-1967 borders. You can't claim sovereignty without recognizes other countries sovereignty in the reagion. Now all Arab countries should recognize Israel, and many of them do today, however Israel still doesn't recognize Palestine. But also you must realize that when the state of Israel declared its independence it claimed ALL land within its borders is owned by the state thus stripping ownership away from any Palestinian living in Israel proper at the time. A two state solution is the answer but Israel refuses to agree to it. So yes they don't want to live seperately they want to keep the Palestinians from having there own country.

"It's strange. It's seemingly always the Palestinians who want peace and not the israelis. Well, I can name you hundreds of Israeli peace organization. Name me one Palestinian..."

Here ya go there is more but you asked for one: http://www.hanania.com/palestinianpeacenow.htm

"You call me a racist towards the Palestinian people. You say that I value Jewish blood over Arab blood. Well, let me tell you I never did, but today I do."

Because I stand up for the Palestinians you become racist? It had nothing to do about today. It was what was already ingrained in your skewed perspective. You just are openly admitting it. At least you are honest with yourself about your racism, hopefully one day you will realize that we all live on this planet together and everyone deserves basic human rights.

"Today, I see a civilization of people which are far from civilized. I see a people which does not care about human life anymore, let alone their own. I see mothers strapping TNT-bars around their little sons and daughters. I see fathers teaching their kids to hate and take them to fight at their youngest ages. I see hundreds of Middle Eastern television and radio channels promoting nothing but hate against Israel, America and Jews in general. The first words of many Palestinian children are 'Itbach al-yahud' or 'kill the jew'.
See Memri."

First you are judging an entire race of people on the acts of a few. You can't do that. You have to und

Re:not really censored

[Aapje]

Here is some proof of the rampant racism against Arabs from reputable sources:

Human Rights Watch: Discrimination Against Palestinian Arab Children in Israel's Schools
Haaretz: JNF cannot discriminate against Arabs in allocating land rights
Al-Ahram: 'Democratic' racism 1
Al-Ahram: 'Democratic' racism 2

Of course you can argue whether this qualifies as apartheid, but it is hard to deny the inequality between Jews and Arabs in Israel.

It has no more to do with apartheid than the boundary fences on the borders of most countries

This argument would only be valid if:
1. Israel recognized the right of Palestinians to have a state and would allow 'nation-building'.
2. The wall would have been build on the Green line, instead of cutting through Palestinian land.

Besides, the barrier/wall/fence is only part of the great open air prison that the Palestinian territories have become. Palestinians cannot even travel freely within their own 'country'.

only it is more justified since Israel is under constant terrorist attack

Please look up the number of Israeli citizens killed versus the number of Palestinians citizens killed. Then tell me who is being terrorized.

If Israel were interested in apartheid, it would not have allowed hundreds of thousands of Arabs to become citizens and to live all over the country

And yet there are millions of refugees who have not been allowed back by Israel and whose property has been confiscated. In contrast, Jews with no claim other than their bloodline are allowed to immigrate into Israel.

Ah yes, Halliburton.

[PHAEDRU5]

Do you have any idea of how big that company is? In how many countries it's incorporated? And you want to blame all on one tiny part - if teh allegation turns out to be actually true?

Shibboleth. In the original meaning.

You're not terribly smart, are you?

Re:Ah yes, Halliburton.

[dbIII]

True - I run software by Halliburton but frequently and correctly curse the name of Macromedia instead when it fails to work. They do good in some areas - but corruption is corruption and should be a prosecuted criminal offence whether you are buying or selling government favours.

Re:Ah yes, Halliburton.

[that this is not und]

I have some corrupt floppy diskettes with software on them that I'd like to recover.

So, you're saying I should turn 'em in to the government, rather than beseech Peter Norton for assistance??

Re:Ah yes, Halliburton.

[GreatBunzinni]

Do you have any idea of how big that company is? In how many countries it's incorporated? And you want to blame all on one tiny part - if teh allegation turns out to be actually true?

Halliburton is a big company and operates in a lot of countries. Nonetheless, it is an US company owned by USians and led by USians. The company's decision-makers are USians. Having a subsidiary or a small office in some country or controlling some company which was bought off from some non-USian doesn't make it non-USian.

And by the way, for your information, just because the news doesn't coincide with your personal views or ruin your personal flavour of reality it doesn't mean that they should be conveniently labelled as false. Nonetheless, and keeping the topic of this discusion in mind, your actions towards unflattering news is very telling.

You're not terribly smart, are you?

Claiming that Halliburton isn't an US company just because it is big and operates in lots of of countries isn't exactly a demonstration of intelligence.

Re:Ah yes, Halliburton.

[dbIII]

A dictionary will help you.

Re:Ah yes, Halliburton.

[that this is not und]

How is a dictionary going to help me recover floppy diskettes?

Name Calling Won't Dismiss the Issues

[twitter]

This list would be more accurately described as 'Top 25 Things Liberals Want to Whine About This Year'.

Haliburton helping Iran to build a bomb is a "Liberal" issue?

A free and uncensored news media is a "Liberal Whine" issue?

Properly accounting for eight billion dollars worth of "Homeland Security" spending is a big spending "Liberal" issue?

Commrad, I think you would prefer the old USSR or China, where there is not government corruption because those who notice are put in jail. Oh dear, number 14 is about the former KGB is building detention centers in the US. Looks like you and your "conservative" buddies are doing a good job. Keep it up and there will only be one company and one party here in the US. When that happens, you will have to change the names you call people. May I suggest "reactionary whiners" ?

Re:Name Calling Won't Dismiss the Issues

[lilomar]

Keep it up and there will only be [...] one party here in the US.

Too late.

The only differences between the current US parties are the "values" they pay lip service to. They are both being paid by the same lobbists.

That wasn't a troll.

[Torvaun]

That was humor. Mod it funny, if you so desire. But no one should have wasted points downmodding him.

Oh, sorry.

[PHAEDRU5]

I attributed your original post to a lame attempt at humor.

I see now that you are a well-indoctrinated, humorless moron.

Please forgive the mistake, and good luch with the rest of your empty life.

Could be Zealots.

[twitter]

Palestine did not make the list. The enslavement of people there is not well reported considering the large proportion of foreign aid Israel receives and the impact on the US image and US relations with other states. The continued lack of resolution for the longstanding "Palestinian Refuge Problem" is a big deal.

They also failed to mention conditions in China and how free country trade has worsened conditions in free countries without improving them in non free.

Ugh

[DanielMarkham]

I'll be kind and simply observe that the list is somewhat subjective.

To be more direct, it looks like a simple process:

1) Mix words 9-11, Cheney, Halliburton, Iraq, Oil, GM, etc randomly with plot, conspiracy, oppresses, torture, poison.
2) Make a list of these statements
3) Go find various left-wing web sites and groups to make these accusations
4) Claim censorship when nobody gives a flying fig
5) Tie it up in a quasi-official-looking report
6) Get Slashdot to run it (Must be cool-aid night at the Zonk household again)

Yes, I exaggerate, but not by much. I'm not sure there's anything remotely interesting in any of this. Not because it isn't exciting -- it's very inflamatory to those who buy-in to this world-view. But it's no more than you could find attending any left-wing political rally and hanging around in the bar afterwards. Got a lefty friend? Spend some time with them and you'll get all of this. It's hardly a secret. It also strikes me as very dishonest to claim censorship on important stories when the world is full of journalists and organizations that would love to break some of these big stories if they were real.

So guys, if you get a _real_ story that is along these lines, by all means grab the byline and run with it. But between reader interest and sourcing, so far you ain't got squat except a lot of whining and exaggerations about censorship.

I think the whole article is flamebait, and I think those commenters who call bullshit on Slashdot are speaking truth to power. Geesh.

They outsourced it.

[twitter]

Last I heard, censorship is when The Man(tm) takes forcible action to squash a story that's damaging, incriminating, or otherwise detrimental to The Powers That Be(tm). You know, like North Korea killing stories of mass starvation ...

Well, the man has a lot to do with broadcast media which is where the alledged censorship occurred. As broadcast still dominates the public perception, you should be very worried that broadcast is dominated by a very small number of companies that can easily be bullied/bribed by their federal masters. At that rate, there is no distinction between public and private censorship. One of the stories on the list is growing hunger in the US. Could it be that someone has kept you from learning of actual starvation?

Censorship is insidious, you never know what you are missing.

Re:They outsourced it.

[The Bungi]

One of the stories on the list is growing hunger in the US. Could it be that someone has kept you from learning of actual starvation?

That's not even funny. I dare you to find me a single instance of a human being actually starving to death in the US. Hell, I dare you to find me a single example of death by starvation anywhere in the American continent. You won't even find that in Haiti.

You obviously have no idea how complete the breakdown of social structure and fabric has to be before people start to actually die from lack of food. And you've obviously never been to a place where that happens.

Are there undernourished or malnourished (two very different things) people in the US? Sure. People starving to death? And no one knows about it because of "censorship"? I'd really enjoy seeing you try and back that up somehow.

Re:They outsourced it.

[metamatic]

That's not even funny. I dare you to find me a single instance of a human being actually starving to death in the US.

You're the first person to say anything about starving to death. He just said "starvation". Look it up.

Re:They outsourced it.

[The Bungi]

There are better, less exciting terms to describe malnutrition.

Re:They outsourced it.

[mpe]

As broadcast still dominates the public perception, you should be very worried that broadcast is dominated by a very small number of companies that can easily be bullied/bribed by their federal masters.

These may not be bullied/bribed at all. They may be pushing their own political adgenda, with or without any actual conspiracy between the companies concerned.
With the ammount of corporate lobbying which goes on it isn't always obvious exactly who is "master".

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

and another

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.saturdaynoon.org/

definitely censored :(

It is ironic and a little sad that standing up for the Truth has become so dangerous.

Thanks.

[PHAEDRU5]

I appreciate your post. Millions wouldn't.

(WIT, dammit! WIT!)

I like to see my alias in the stars.

[PHAEDRU5]

Oh, swoon.

I *don't* vant to be alone.

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why.

[CaffeineAddict2001]

When Jessica Lynch was captured, not a peep was heard about Shoshana Johnson who was taken during the same ambush.

Natalee Holloway got tons of media attention, LaToyia Figueroa's family had to fight like hell to even get a blurb in.

How many white children have laws named after them? Conner Peterson, Jessica Lunsford, Amber Hagerman... All whites there too...

Oh, and BTW

[PHAEDRU5]

Go listen to GSgt Hartmann. He'll set you straight.

Re:Oh, and BTW

[Sunburnt]

Go listen to GSgt Hartmann. He'll set you straight.

I think you mean GySgt Hartmann. And besides, if serving in an actual war didn't "set me straight" by your definition, I somehow doubt that a pop culture movie character'll do the trick. Thanks for your interest, though, and good night.

you lose at reading comprehension

[WrongMonkey]

#14 was about KBR, a contractor, not the KGB.
Iran was was given parts for a nuclear reactor, not a bomb.
Exaggeration may help get people's attention, but not in a positive way.

Scare-Mongering Bullshit

[QuoteMstr]

Look, I lean pretty far to the left, but this list is bullshit. The MSM organizations are no angels, but I just don't see enough here to justify an allegation of censorship; the compilers of this list complaining about censorship are just as wrong as the intelligent design folk who do the same thing. As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence presented here simply does not make the cut.

Let's examine a few of the problems:

• They took a few minor problems with a couple specific GM crops and took the unjustifiable leap of stating that "Several recent studies confirm fears that genetically modified (GM) foods damage human health." The actual evidence presented, even if true, does not justify sensational news coverage.
• The statement "A group of scientists led by biochemist Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini from the University of Caen in France found that human placental cells are very sensitive to Roundup at concentrations lower than those currently used in agricultural application" does not support the statement that roundup in general is harmful to human health. Where's the connection between the concentration used in the field and the concentration in the finished food? They might not even be remotely related. Placental cells placed in a pure caffeine solution will die, yet we consider is safe to drink Coffee! Again, not newsworthy yet. Show me a peer-reviewed, published study that's been reproduced at least once that links roundup (as consumed by humans) to health problems and I'll change my mind. That would be newsworthy.
• Haliburton is a wicked company, yes. But whether legitimately or not, it has grown to become one of the major suppliers of services to the US government. We must do something to curb its power, yes. However, simply because one of the hundreds of contracts given to Haliburton was not extensively covered is not a reason to think that the MSM is hiding that the sky is falling.
• The OPEC article is fluff, yes. But do you expect the government to not have a plan about reconstructing the oil industry?

I don't have time to analyze the entire list. But given the obvious deficiencies in some of the listed entries, very good reasons for not covering them extensively in the media, why should I be convinced that the others were censored?

Come on, the MSM is no group of angels, and certainly has an agenda, but this article paints us lefties as a bunch of lunatics out of touch with reality, and so does more harm than good for our cause.

Re:Scare-Mongering Bullshit

[4e617474]

Look, I lean pretty far to the left, but this list is bullshit.

I lean pretty far to the left too, and also detect bullshit. Cheney is murderous scum, and I don't buy that Haliburton doing so well when he holds the (theoretically) second-highest position in the Executive Branch is coincidence. But Cheney is getting the same deferred salary payments for his employment *prior* to being Vice President that he would have gotten anyway and his stock options have already been irrevocably given away, it's just up to an independent trust to decide when they get cashed out. You put enough Congressional committees together, and you'll get more definitions than you know what to do with, but I don't see an empirically verified increase in Dick Cheney's finances based on what happens with Haliburton. I suspect that Cheney's friends will make sure that he profits handsomely from the no-bid contracts that have been getting doled out, and I don't buy for a second that he's able to be so central to the war in Iraq yet stay out of anything involving the biggest private sector player in the whole operation. But that's suspicion and speculation. The real news story is just how fast and loose Haliburton plays with taxpayer money, with all the waste and fraud, but that has been reported.

Do not get me started on the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Seriously. Do not - I should be studying. However, those are the topics I'm familiar with. I don't know what's going on with the Congo. I have heard scattered reports of someone passing away during an "overzealous questioning" hear and there on NPR, but I've never heard anyone try to put a number to it. I can recall a little wrangling over the finer points of welfare-to-work and the official definition of "poverty" and just how well the economic "recovery" and "growth" benefited who, but you don't hear much about how much more or less widespread and bad poverty in the US is becoming these days, do you? Even if they were bullshit stories, every one of them, the media isn't doing a very good job of preparing us to be able to tell, are they? It's a pretty provocative list and it makes me wonder just what I might not know about what's going on out there.

Re:Scare-Mongering Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank god, a reasonable liberal. I mean this will all sincerity and no disrespect, but nearly every liberal I've ever had a run in with spouts so much stupid nonsense with no way to back up their claims, that I'm acutally shocked when one speaks in a way I can debate with. I'd love to spend some time chatting with you over your points of view (vs mine of course) - it would be an enjoyable and provoking conversation.

Bravo! There are lots of people on both sides that can learn from what you have written.

No such thing as mass media

[Tony]

However, while I was napping last night, someone conveniently changed the definition to mean "when the mass media doesn't give a certain pet story/cause/event of mine the attention I think it deserves."

The problem is, here in America, "mass media" is controlled by very few people. There's almost no independent media left. So, most news stories are controlled by a small number of self-interested individuals. Some are controlled by the profit motive. Others are controlled by their limited access. In the end, we get a very slanted view of "news."

Censorship occurs at the moment of publication. Who censors it is almost irrelevant. It doesn't have to be government. If 90% of the population gets its news from .002% of the population, the .002% may choose to censor what the rest hears.

Really, all it means is, our culture has been trained to give a fuck about American Idol, but not about the important stuff, like, "Why are we busy destroying Iraq?"

Re:No such thing as mass media

[prisoner-of-enigma]

The problem is, here in America, "mass media" is controlled by very few people. There's almost no independent media left. So, most news stories are controlled by a small number of self-interested individuals. Some are controlled by the profit motive. Others are controlled by their limited access. In the end, we get a very slanted view of "news."

I've got a solution for you. It's this newfangled thing called "The Internet." It's a world-spanning network where anyone can become a news source instantly and almost for free. Even better, hundreds of millions of people can view your "news," largely without any interference by any other party (except places like China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.) You should try The Internet sometime. I hear it's great!

Hey, don't worry if you've never heard of this "Internet" thing. I hear Bill Gates underestimated it as well, so you're in good company.

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why.

[INCOG MAN]

Yes, PLEASE! This couple were brutally sodomized and TORTURED. The girl was urinated on and bleach was poured down her throat. She was cut up into 5 pieces and put out with the trash. All this, while her Parents were down the street looking for her car. And you don't think this is a horrific act of Black on White crime? Well, if it has no effect on you than I'm very sorry for where your head is at. Matt Lauer of the Today Show visited Knoxville over a stupid love triangle murder recently. This crime PALES before the story of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. The media's avoidance of the story is a indictment of just how they think of white people. Just like you. An angst-ridden white, who somehow has lost any sense of right and wrong, and has become a brainwashed zombie. Our society has now made some white people into a sniveling idiots to "Diversity." I WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS ANYMORE. From now on I fight back against you fools.

Censorship Doesn't Work - Lohan,Spears -Paris Work

[gadlaw]

If you're a country like the old Soviet Union, censorship was tried and so the people knew what was the important things to find out about and pay attention to. Flooding the news with crap about Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears and every other gossipy bit of crap does the trick and accomplishes the same goal. Important news goes by the wayside while Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC and CBS busy themselves feeding us the pablum we want to hear and know about. They follow the lowest common denominator which is fine when it's entertainment at stake but when the ratings became the most important thing in news on the air and in the print media then the truth and what is important goes by the wayside. It's all over, no censorship is needed, the boring important news doesn't get ratings but Lindsay Lohan being caught drunk at a car crash is front page news. We're doomed, we've doomed ourselves to being ruled by incompetents and tyrants and we'll never know the difference. Look at who we have in charge now, an incompetent and a would be constitution breaking tyrant. But ooh look - Paris Hilton is going to jail in a few weeks and that's what we want to know about. We've doomed ourselves.

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why.

[CaffeineAddict2001]

Of course it's horrible, but it happens ALL THE TIME. To both whites and blacks, but whites get the VAST majority of the media coverage. The one time a white couple gets skipped and you racists start cocking your shotguns for the race war.

Look at one of my other posts about which children have laws named after them. Why is it that no black children are on that list? Is it because this sort of thing doesn't happen to black children? Or maybe it is more likely that the politicians and the media only feel bad (like you) when the victims are white.

Left-wing garbage

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the Congo thing. That sucks.

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why.

[RelliK]

Better article: here. I never heard about it until now, and it certainly deserves a lot more coverage than that lying bitch who accused Duke guys of rape.

That said, the 25 points also important. Global warming, geopolitics, government corruption, etc. Those issues affect all of us.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

of no real importance, eh?

[Travoltus]

So I guess that means they lost Congress, eh?

No, wait, these "anti-Americans"

(read: anti-Bush, anti corporate state, anti pave-the-world) just elected a DEMOCRATIC Congress.

Sillyme. You're an idiot!

Roundup

[Black-Man]

Well... we better hope that story is hype. The chemical is used on all farms.

Re:Roundup

[adminstring]

I'm pretty sure Roundup is not used on certified-organic farms.

Damn! You're sensitive.

[PHAEDRU5]

Also, I think you might be a bit single-minded about why elections get lost.

Personally, I think the US electorate looked at an utterly corrupt Republican Congress, asked itself whether it wanted the pikers or the professionals, and went with the professionals.

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why.

[INCOG MAN]

Yeah, right. Happens all the time to Blacks, sure. Everybody who reads these posts knows well and good that if this thing had happened to Blacks than half of LA would now be in smoking ruins and the News would be 24/7 about this for months. Just getting beat up by the cops is enough for them to go haywire. You just can't accept the facts of the case for what it is. Those blacks "Got Medieval" on these poor kids. Ever hear about the Wichita Massacre? Check that one out people! I'm truly sorry for your lack of outrage--it's a typical anti-white attitude when confronted with a real life event that does not jibe with your fantasy world. You need to sit down and think over some stuff, like right now. It will get worse.

The Media not covering Important Stories NAAAA

[JohnRoss1968]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channon_Christian_and _Christopher_Newsom_murder Give me a break Youd think someone kidnapping a girl gangraping her for days then torturing her. then while shes still alive slowly cutting her breast off Might catch Nancy Graces attention..... But nope Im guessing this couple wernt worth reporting on Nancy Grace is nothing more than a Whore for Ratings and that goes for Most of the Mass media...but yes im singling her out

This has been already said...

[bryan1945]

but this list is basically crap. Some might be true (or partially true), but overall it reads like a paranoid's fantasy. I'm just surprised they didn't bring out Roswell and the "fake" moon landing.

Alternate story

[Tarantulas]

"Barking moonbats, dismayed when legitimate news media refuse to run their wack-a-loon conspiracy theories, turn to lunatic fringe blogs."

Re:Alternate story

[that this is not und]

Hey, now. Slashdot isn't a lunatic fring blog.

For that, you want firedoglake, or dailykos, or lucianne, or free republic, or democraticunderground.

Whew! Ever looked at the people who participate in the online discussion threads on *those* sites??

Re:Alternate story

[Anonymous Coward]

>Ever looked at the people who participate in the online discussion threads on *those* sites??
They post their pictures?

Oakland Bay Bridge fire

[calidoscope]

The tanker truck was carrying gasolene, which would have about the same flame temperature as jet fuel. Good point in bringing that up with respect to the WTC conspiracy theories.

Re:Oakland Bay Bridge fire

[ArcherB]

The tanker truck was carrying gasolene, which would have about the same flame temperature as jet fuel. Good point in bringing that up with respect to the WTC conspiracy theories.

Yeah, I got a journal entry to that effect. Something to note though, jet fuel is much like diesel. It burns much hotter than gasoline. Also, fully loaded airliners carry much more than what you would find on a tanker truck.

Re:Oakland Bay Bridge fire

[Lehk228]

I would think a tall building with a jet sized hole full of fuel would be very torch-like since the hole on the side would provide a constant supply of fresh air to keep a strong oxygen supply going to the fire


besides, if this administration can't leak an agent's name or fire some nosey attorneys without getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar, why should we believe they are capable of pulling off the second greatest fraud in human history.

Re:Oakland Bay Bridge fire

[miro f]

second greatest?

you mean after the moon landing? =)

Re:Oakland Bay Bridge fire

[Lehk228]

actually i meant religion

Hat size?

[PHAEDRU5]

What size is your tinfoil hat?

Just want to know so I can check whether your cranio-rectal inversion is a record-maker.

So Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The media reports on crap like Paris Hilton because it is easier than reporting real news, and it pays just the same.

Never ascribe to evil what is easily explained by stupidity or laziness.

2007?

[Anonymous Coward]

When did 2007 end? When I checked my calendar we still had a few months to go.

No Entertainment Value

[krycheq]

What makes anyone actually stupid enough to think that the media exists for us? There is no such thing as the "fourth estate" any longer. It is dead and has been replaced by corporate greed driven by advertising dollars.

As for the article: The problem with these stories is that there is little or no entertainment value. I walked through CNN Center in Atlanta today while I was in Atlanta... the last time I was there, the center area was cordoned off for their "Talk Back Live". I think the spot that this show used to be shot at is now a Starbucks kiosk. The place and the organization is obviously geared for entertainment purposes only... none of the stories hold much potential hope for generating ratings, and therefore, advertisement dollars.

#6 Federal Whistleblower Protection in Jeopardy

[Anonymous Coward]

The key word here that the article misses is federal. Every state has their own whistleblower protection laws. There is no need anymore for federal whistleblower protection. This is simply a victory for state's rights over federal law. Remmoving federal whistleblower protection will speed up our judical process, since whistleblowing is usually only used as a lame defense for health employees who were fired. eg. "I'm a nurse who complained about hospital mold in 2005, but I was fired in 2007. I'll use whistleblowing as a defense and sue the hospital in both federal and state courts."
Current whistleblowing law is a joke, in my state, a health clinic employee was laid off when the clinic moved to a smaller facility. She sued saying that moving to the smaller facility was a threat to public health and stated that her employment was protected under whistleblowing law.

and they were persecuted

[Anonymous Coward]

and just like the business-owning jews in germany, many of the jews living in arab countries before israel were persecuted...not everywhere at all times, but it happened. Jewish sympathizers make you sick? Well, people who want to paint a rosy picture of any culture make me sick...especially ones like you are supporting blindly. Take a look at yourself and your people and don't be so cocky and narcissistic...be like, oh, I don't know...be like a real humble servant of god should be...

Re:and they were persecuted

[JRGhaddar]

Well I am not surpirsed an AC made the following statement. But I will answer you.

"and just like the business-owning jews in germany, many of the jews living in arab countries before israel were persecuted...not everywhere at all times, but it happened."

What happend to business-owning jews in germany was absolutely horrible. And jews living in Arab countries may have been persecuted

"Jewish sympathizers make you sick?"

They do when they favor Jewish life and blood more than that of another race of people. You see the concept that __________ race is more deserving than _____________ race is called racism. And yes racism makes me sick.

"Well, people who want to paint a rosy picture of any culture make me sick...especially ones like you are supporting blindly."

(sarcasm) Yes I painted the rosiest of pictures of the Palestinians and Arabs. (end sarcasm)

"Take a look at yourself and your people and don't be so cocky and narcissistic"

Myself? My people? Well I am an American. An Arab American. Whose Mother is Irish-American Indian Southern Baptist, and whose Father is a Shi'ite Muslim from Lebanon both U.S. citizens and both still married (30 years). You see I grew up with the idea that ALL people are equal and ALL people deserve equal treatment. I know that might sound "Cocky" or "Narcissistic" to you, but it kind of falls under the same pretext as "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them." that's Matthew 7,12 from the Bible which segway's me to the final comment you made.

"...be like, oh, I don't know...be like a real humble servant of god should be..."

a real humble servant of god... hmm well I don't know which God you follow, but I am pretty sure there aren't any Gods out there that tell there followers to post Anonymous rubbish on a website about someone who is standing up for equality. Perhaps this is some new church of bigotry?

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why.

[JAB Creations]

Sorry is a word you are programed to use. "white supremacist holocaust-denying anti-semitic website" Fine: if they tell the truth the way it is it doesn't matter WHO they are and what their views are. The truth is the truth regardless who speaks it. Just because you do not agree with something does not erase the fact that it exists. Just because you don't care does not mean others will follow your retreat.

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why.

[CaffeineAddict2001]

Medieval? http://www.withoutsanctuary.org/main.html

Take a look at that. This happened on a regular basis for 270 years by "upstanding" members of white communities. Maybe you should sit down and think about that before you point out a few isolated incidents of psychopaths and suddenly cry that the sky is falling.

Nothing to see here...

[Anonymous Coward]

These 'censored' 'stories' appear to be nothing more than a standard grab-bag of Leftist talking points and black-helicopter conspiracy theories. (Haliburton/KBR/Cheney, we blew up the Towers, Bush McHitler's concentration camps...etc.) Futhermore, it isn't censorship if the media fails to report/discuss something.

Under-reporting and self-censoring isn't the issue

[solios]

The issue is that the media has stopped reporting everything that's going on and has instead shifted into more of a "crowd control" role over the past couple of decades. The information is still out there for the people who actually seriously care, but the fact is that just about nobody does.

Media spinelessness isn't the issue. Apathy and willful ignorance is the issue.

I say "nuts"

[Anonymous Coward]

So my subject is a homige to recent efforts by fans of Jericho to get the show back on the air... but I think it's a fitting title since about half of this top 25 list is rabid liberal conspiracy theory... Why is it when an extreme liberal view isn't widely covered in the media it's called censorship, but if a conservative view get a moments air time it's lambased as propaganda?

For example the proponents of the Fairness Doctrine are making serious strides in making it into law, but that story didn't make the cut. The Fairness Doctrine in a nutshell is carefully designed to squash the views on talk radio, because it is one of the only places conservative views far outweight those of liberals.

I am so tempted to break down the 25 points to show their liberal bias. Like how Cheney sold all his Halliburton stock before the first election to avoid any conflict of interst concerns... but taking the time and effort to break down every argument in their 25 points... would likely make my head explode. I simply don't have enough duct tape to wrap around my head to take on such an endeavor.

While I love Slashdot and the tech news I find there, sometimes the liberal bias of what stories get published on the home page makes me sick. When was the last time you saw a list of 25 or so far right views not getting enough much media attention on the Slashdot home page? Trust me they are out there. You can't remember it can you, becasue they don't post it... but that's not censorship, it's refusing to promote propaganda from their jaded point of view... but all those Daily Kos articles, well they are news that needs to be heard!

Honestly, I'd rather not see highly bias views from either the right or left on Slashdot... just give us the tech news... if I want liberal news I'll go to Daily Kos and if I want conservative news I'll go to Rush Limbaugh... just give me tech news Slashdot and leave out the liberal BS... pretty please.

I call BS on this write-up.

[rgelb1]

I am not informed on most of items in the article, but the entries that I was informed on are complete BS. For instance, in #9 "The World Bank Funds Israel-Palestine Wall", the author continuously states that the International Court of Justice ruled that the wall is illegal. However, the author neglects to mention a little item - the court's decision is NON-BINDING to anybody. It could as well have been made by a tree.

Given that non-binding decisions are treated as be all end all of legal decision, I hereby declare in my non-binding decision that the author of the article is the sweat of baboon's ass.

Read about the non-binding decision here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3879057.stm

In story #5 "High-Tech Genocide in Congo", the author states that the 1996 invasion of Congo by Rwanda and Uganda was US sponsored. Really? How was it sponsored? Were US troops involved? Was US involved less then other countries? There aren't are substantiations, the author just throws out flames.

The other parts of the article are written in similar tones - makes me question absolutely everything in it.

Re:I call BS on this write-up.

[Old Wolf]

I hereby declare ... that the author of the article is the sweat of baboon's ass.

Priceless!!!!!!

Christian and Newsome murders

[StupidKatz]

http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/original/0507/030 1_channon_christian.html - murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom (remove slashdot-inserted space in visible URI).

Anyone who believes what they see on TV should read what they can about the above - then question why they haven't heard a *peep* about it from the mainstream media, especially in light of the utter fiasco which was the Duke Lacrosse false rape accusation garbage.

Talk about a suppressed story, and this one being without wild assumptions or other leaps to conclusions, unlike the majority of the ones listed on the "official" website.

Re:Christian and Newsome murders

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, kidnap-torture-rape crimes are pretty common. I see nothing about that story that indicates that it deserves more attention than it has received. Compared to Natalie Holloway going for a midnight swim and drowning, it has received less coverage, but then again, all the Fox News staff probably doesn't want to take a vacation to Tennesee.

the people who own the news and give the orders...

[Anonymous Coward]

...on down the food chain are all bilderbergers (news and expose site). They decide what is news and what isn't, based on this years goals they have in mind, which wars to promote, which "popular" candidates they will push into office, etc. That of itself is one of the top censored stories, and has been for a long time, how a relatively small number of people actually run most of the planet. You see plenty of coverage of Davos, G8, etc, etc, but bilderberger? the topdogs on the planet getting together to "discuss' high stakes geopolitical issues? It is NOT a coincidence that it is mostly spiked every year. They don't want the herds to really find out just how much they are lead around by the nose all the time.

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why.

[Eli Gottlieb]

if Jews didn't own and control the media then they wouldn't be the ones at fault Keep us Jews out of this, asshole.

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why.

[Eli Gottlieb]

I wasn't a believer in "new anti-Semitism" until I saw people like this, Reddit.com, and pro-Palestinian leftists who somehow sound an awful lot like right-wing fascists.

Am Yisrael CHAY! Od Avinu CHAY!

OK, I'll still making us look bad now.

In other words

[rossz]

It's the top 25 of "Stories that give conspiracy theory aficionados a giant woodie"

The /. we know and love.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, slashdot once again misses the forest for the trees.

Being a geek is fun because you pay attention to and hold details in high regard. Sometimes, however, it is easy to get bogged down in the details and lose sight of the larger picture.

Count how many replies in this story are about the definition of censorship vs. the use of the word in this particular case. Count how many posts are about the fact that the authors are obviously left-wing. Trees.

Forget the fact that, aside from the 9-11 story, these are all huge stories that will impact a lot of people, some possibly even the world as a whole. Forest.

I am a staunch independent. I don't take the source of material lightly. I don't particularly like the right or the left though I have voted for both. I want to see these stories. All of them. I want to see the right's version of this as well. Want to have a top 25 list of censored stories done by "right wingers", please write (an accurate) one up. However, I see a lot of dismissal going on simply because something is being spoken by an opposing side. Is it true or not? If it is, stop killing the messenger because you don't like him or her and stop missing the forest for the trees.

No wonder we as a country are fucked.

People in this country want to know about Paris Hilton more than they want to know what the hell we are doing in Iraq. People on /. would rather debate whether or not the use of the word censor is proper in this particular case. RTFA and comment on the content.

No, I'm not new here. I'm just really getting sick of people here gravitating not toward the content but to some inane aspect of the presentation of said content.

Censored By Whom?

[MrCrassic]

This article shows that even Ph.D's can make stupid mistakes.

A lot of these stories are FAR from censored. As a matter of fact, I highly remember reading about them and using them in my debate tournaments in high school, such as the oceans bit and the Congo genocide. As a matter of fact, if one looks hard enough, he or she may even be able to find MOUNDS of news wire articles on these same stories. If you can afford it (or your school has a subscription) Lexis-Nexis is a great place to start.

These news articles are not "censored" in the true sense of the word. They are "censored" to a public that A) does not want to see the reality of our government's inner-business or B) does not care to hear about issues like these. When you have stories of Ann Nicole's death and Paris Hilton's prison time making Page 1 of many news outlets, then it comes to show where the true censorship is applied.

Speaking of which, when did people actually start caring about the Darfur initiative? Do these people know how ineffective and problematic UN peacekeepers have been? US-based armies and peacekeepers have been causing all sorts of chaos since the inception of the program...

Insanely incredible bias

[Quila]

I was ready to hear real censorship, but this is a laundry list of the most incredible bias I've seen in a long time, complete with a good dose of tin foil hat.

It's even internally inconsistent, exposing the bias. For example, #12 criticizes Bush for doing an "about-face" on land mines after Clinton's statements to get rid of them, but they say that research on the new breed of land mine started in 1999 -- under Clinton and before Bush.

In its effort to portray the United States as a renegade land mine loving country, it fails to mention that while we didn't sign the Ottawa treaty, we are a signatory to the land mine portion of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

Re:Insanely incredible bias

[Scrameustache]

the United States as a renegade land mine loving country, it fails to mention that while we didn't sign the Ottawa treaty, we are a signatory to the land mine portion of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. And you only sell mines to countries that play by those rules?

Re:Insanely incredible bias

[Quila]

We banned sale of antipersonnel mines for combat use in 1992. IIRC, our last sale was a small one to Canada to so they can test their mine defenses (the Ottawa treaty allows mines for such purposes). We are also the single biggest donor to humanitarian mine action programs in money, training and equipment, pretty much all of that cleaning up the mess left by other countries through the indiscriminate placement of permanent mines.

So we do even more than the Ottawa treaty wants, except for two things: We get protection from mines in the Korean DMZ (not a danger to civilians, and they actually belong to South Korea anyway) and we reserve the right to use them if needed (although we haven't used them in Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq).

Re:Insanely incredible bias

[Scrameustache]

we reserve the right to use them if needed (although we haven't used them in Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq). I just checked, and I found an article about moving stockpiles to border countries in the run up to the invasion, but no proof of their use. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one, since I originally assumed that bringing them there was a sign of intent to use.

Re:Insanely incredible bias

[Quila]

I just checked, and I found an article about moving stockpiles to border countries in the run up to the invasion

A smart military plans for the worst. Many of our ships and subs have nuclear weapons onboard, but that doesn't mean we use them either. In both cases it takes some pretty high-level permission to use them, division commander at least for the mines, and then only if the secretary of defense decides to delegate that far down. And after all that we can only use self-deactivating mines. Policy also says we must record where we put them for later retrieval.

But our biggest complaint was about the DMZ. You'll likely be shot before you ever get a chance to step on a land mine in the DMZ. It is a heavily-protected area where all the mine locations are mapped, and it is only there in case Crazy Kim decides he wants a vacation in the South. So where is the possibility of any civilian casualties?

As with Kyoto, the fact that we didn't sign on is used against us, without even looking at why we didn't sign on.

Yes, Fire can cause steel structures to collapse

[ArcherB]

Here, for the last time.

Then again, why do I bother. I could point you to an al Jazeera video that shows Osama Bin Laden meeting with 9-11 hijackers and you still wouldn't believe it.

_Net_ news censored?

[WheelDweller]

It's the tip of the 'berg.

Here's a nice, simple non-controversial example: the economy.

When we broke 10,000 on the Dow in the Clinton Administration, all three broadcast media threw a party. The other day we broke 11,000 (and then broke THAT) and NOT EVEN ONE of the "big three" mentioned it. Some national papers put it in the 'deep' pages, but it was a definate non-starter.

Not to mention about 20 "personal jihad" stories, like the guy that drove over people at the UNC commons, the 'New Jersey 6' who were ready to kill people at Fort Dix, and several other stories that were written off as kooks and incompetents gone awry.

Yeah, it's important not to panic people...but at this point 1/3 of the Democrats think BUSH is the terrorist, not the guy with the ravine of 400,000 dead Iraqis. And am I ever tired of hearing how we shouldn't "impose Democracy" on people.

Huh? Democracy = Freedom. When is giving anyone freedom an imposition?

Stuff's just upside down; lotsa bots walkin' the street.

Rosie: "Fire doesn't melt steel!" (Her reason for 911 being an inside job.) She's right ya know, we've been making car bodies with pixie dust since the beginning. :>

But wait for it- when a mushroom cloud is over a US city, no one will doubt the news, and maybe then the Liberals will awake to the business at hand. Or, not.

fairness doctrine

[southern yank]

Perhaps there would of been more time available for these stories had the Media Fairness Doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine not been repealed in 1987 by the FCC.

The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!!

[BrowncoatJedi]

More propaganda, liberal claptrap, fearmongering, and doom from the lefties. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz......

Re:Dear PHAEDRU5

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear PHAEDRU5,

Please ask your doctor what an implant is. Then get one instead of posting.

Not worth reading. Really, it's not..

[Livius]

Cute.

While Slashdot readers may not be as well informed as they like to think they are, I don't think this is an audience where you can bluff your way through with the demolition techno-babble.

I've read the Jones paper referred to; he's not even trying to persuade the people who already know better.

Re:Not worth reading. Really, it's not..

[labnet]

While Slashdot readers may not be as well informed as they like to think they are, I don't think this is an audience where you can bluff your way through with the demolition techno-babble. So which was the babble bit? This is the problem I keep seeing. I want to see sensible technical discussion, not these glib comments that do nothing for the debate.

" 25 bleeding hearts and conspiracy stories"

[kinglink]

I've read as far as the guy trying to prove 9/11 didn't happen (actually went to 20 or 21 which is a couple after it) and I gotta say every single one reminds me a bit of global warming, and not in a good way.

First let's set two ground rules. A. Everyone has a stance on global warming. (obviously this is not true, but if you are at all involved in the media than you probably formed an opinion, we're talking about those people as this is an article on the Media.) B. There's liberal biased in the media except for Fox news which is a conservative bias.

If you don't believe either of those facts grow up and come back when you figure this out. Claiming there's not a bias or that you haven't made up your mind isn't about the fact that you're comment is right, it's just that your not actually admitting what you know (or that you're not able to make an opinion, which is a bigger problem).

So why arn't these stories getting more air time? Well let's look at the biggest two (the two haliburton/cheney stories, ok I read to 25, where as 24 is the cheney story). Why are the outlets not ripping our vice president to shreds over this? Well let's assume there's a problem with the story, then reporting on it could be seen as non factual and possibly libel? or maybe instead the news media has grown morals and actually aren't willing to insult our presidential office?

I know I know impossible, so there's gotta be either a problem with the story, or the fact that there's no evidence, or maybe the fact that no one has told the major news outlets, what ever the reason is, we gotta realize it's likely that these stories are similar to FUD.

Or maybe simple on a few of these people don't give a shit. Net neutrality pisses me off, not because it's not important but because the title we've used for it (net neutrality) is annoying and unwieldy. If someone came up with a different name (Internet freedom) people would love to talk about it but Net Neutrality is so distasteful most Americans who watch the news would zone out just after hearing "There's new developments in Net neutrality today"

Remember when the world was all interested in the oceans of the world? Yeah I do too, back in the 90s, but since then people realized "I'm never going to see the ocean, I'm not going scuba diving, there's 75 percent of the world is ocean, so what? ) and they tuned out, Global warming is the "hot topic" of environmentalists and that's what gets the money until people stop caring about it which is happening more and more (like I said people made up their minds and those switching from open stances to closed stances isn't going to make for millions of dollars of funding after a couple more years).

Let me mention the 9/11 issues because that illustrates a third point. The conspiracy of none, aka what happened shortly after 9/11 where people were asking questions about if there really was an attack on the pentagon and so on. People wanted to believe it, however physists and flight experts proved that it could happen exactly as it did. People might not like it but it did. So reading his facts I noticed a problem, the simple fact is that this wasn't "fire" this was a jet's fuel supply burning. It was an jet, not "diesel fuel" I'm not a physicist but I don't see conclusive proof on either of the scholars for 9/11 sites. Oh yeah that's right the entire group has 2 sites. Hmmm.

And so on, is it censorship for most of this stuff, or just poorly set up stories that have factual problems, no scientific basis or just the fact that no one cared after the first announcement of the problem? Who knows maybe some of the 25 stories are worth a second airing, but I have a feeling that we find that a higher percentage are just not as interesting as they sound?

Re:" 25 bleeding hearts and conspiracy stories"

[smoker2]

So reading his facts I noticed a problem, the simple fact is that this wasn't "fire" this was a jet's fuel supply burning. It was an jet, not "diesel fuel"

Point 1 - Fire is Fire !
Point 2 - Jet fuel is Kerosene, which is highly refined oil, and has approximately the same heat of combustion as diesel.
Do you know how jet/diesel engines work ? Air is compressed and then fuel is injected , which ignites due to the high temperature of the compressed air - IN BOTH TYPES OF ENGINE !
Point 3 - Just because you don't give a shit, doesn't mean nobody else does.

Re:" 25 bleeding hearts and conspiracy stories"

[kinglink]

If fire was fire, then we'd never have cars that ran on multiple fuel sources, Diesal would work for all. Fire can be a VERY different thing, If you don't know anything about aircraft or it that's fine but don't act like it's the same thing, small prop planes use a significantly higher grade of fuel than is available at pumps. Jets require even more power. The type of fuel put into a jet on average is greatly more powerful than "diesel" that people consider.

So I could be wrong.. I really could, so I did a 5 minute search on the internet for "jet fuel temperatures" and I found this site. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/militar y_law/1227842.html?page=4

Funny it's a well known paper it's a reasonably well respected and from a quick look at the other parts of the article I find these facts that the story presented refuted. So why should I expect the other 24 to be so highly correct when this one is blatant falsehoods that have already been disproven.

Re:" 25 bleeding hearts and conspiracy stories"

[sgt_doom]

I won't repeat the obvious, kinglink, that only five major corps own the vast amount of American media - while 6 global corps own the vast amount of global media, instead let's discuss that Pentagon thing:

The next day satellite picture taken of the Pentagon shows, by the display of the scorch marks on the roof, a precisely perfect dead center strike on the west wall. Odd that some pilot would perform an incredible aerodynamic feat with such a cumbersome aircraft, approach scant feet off the ground, flying dead center into the west wall (the only wall to have been seriously reinforced - and the furthest end from the SecDef) when if one wished to do the most damage one would have made the easiest air approach - flying straight down into the center of the Pentagon. Oops!!! Too obvious....

Re:" 25 bleeding hearts and conspiracy stories"

[Quila]

I know someone who was there when it hit. He heard the jet. He braved the heat and smoke to carry people to safety. He saw the jet fuel reigniting when they thought it was out (how does a cruise missile do that?). He saw jet parts.

A jet hit the building. End Of Story.

Re:Damn! You're sensitive.

[that this is not und]

Yep.

KY is always nicer than Crisco.

(And some of these Democrats I would even say know what Astroglide is.)

The official story defies rationality

[nephridium]

Imho your comparison between that physicist and a creationist is not appropriate. Unless the official view were creationism. It's not the theory of this physicist that can be likened to creationism - it's the official version. The official story is so strange it makes anyone with a brain wonder. For the first time ever has a building (designed to withstand planes crashing into it) collapses due to fire, officially due to weakening of the steel frame because the fire could never have risen above the melting point of steel. Yet we see a pool of molten steel right there at ground zero. Even if we believed the official story that there was a structural failure, why would all three WTC buildings collapse into their own footprint? Given that they weren't hit from four sides simultaneously it does seem a bit weird. And what of WTC building 7 - the third one that collpases into its own footprint (at free fall speed) yet was never hit by a plane? Any official or otherwise rational explanantion for that?

Something is rotten in the big Apple.

Re:The official story defies rationality

[that this is not und]

My wife doesn't belive in the Moon Landing.

Go figure, huh?

Re:The official story defies rationality

[mpe]

The official story is so strange it makes anyone with a brain wonder.

The official story is also a classic "conspiracy theory". Though to be honest it is hard to find a way of getting four planes hijacked on the same day, with two of them being flown into adjacent buildings, which does not involve conspiracy.

For the first time ever has a building (designed to withstand planes crashing into it) collapses due to fire, officially due to weakening of the steel frame because the fire could never have risen above the melting point of steel. Yet we see a pool of molten steel right there at ground zero.

As well as a lack of investigation of the structure. Usually in a building collapse you'd have people examining the wreckage very carefully to see if anything can be done to prevent other buildings collapsing in a similar way.

And what of WTC building 7 - the third one that collpases into its own footprint (at free fall speed) yet was never hit by a plane?

WTC7 was to all intents and purposes a "surrounding building". It wasn't on the same plot as the other 6 and was built at a different time.

Re:The official story defies rationality

[nevergleam]

You seem to give a lot of credence to the so-called fact that there was a pool of molten steel (pictures I have seen in scholars for truth articles do not convince me that there was all that much), so I thought I would provide an explanation that I have not seen anywhere. Thus do I now present to you the concept of strain energy. I will make this assumption assuming you have no experience in mechanics of materials, so forgive me any accidental condescension. If you do know about strain energy, skip to the bottom paragraph.

Steel is favored for building because its material behavior is relatively simple. Structural steel is classified most importantly by its yield and ultimate strengths. "Strength" of a material refers to the amount of pressure (force per area) that can be applied to it before it reaches a limit state, in this case either yield or ultimate. Pressure is referred to in engineering jargon as stress. Deformations caused by stress are usually measured as strain, defined as [length of deformation]/[original length of material]. For example, if a steel column were 120 inches long and were to shorten 0.12 inches under a stress (such as floor resting on it) the strain would be 0.001.

Now for the limit states I mentioned before: yield and ultimate. Up until yield stress, any deformation in the material will reverse when stress is removed from the material. In other words, that column I mentioned before that shortened 0.12 inches, if you removed the stress from it, assuming it hasn't yielded yet, it will return to its original length. The reason for this is because when a material is stressed, the deformation causes energy to be put into the system. If you know your classical physics, think of Work, which is equal to force times displacement. When the material is unstressed, the pent up energy dissipates itself as reverse Work; it reforms back to its original length. Steel is considered a simple material because before yield, a graph displaying stress plotted against strain would be a straight line. This linear stress-strain behavior is referred to as elastic behavior.

At yield stress, elastic behavior in a material ceases. The ratio of added strain to added stress increases about fivefold. Also, when the material is unstressed, it only recovers length equal to the strain at yield. The remaining deformation is permanent. This happens because the Work done by the stress is dissipated by other means, mainly as heat. Remember that, HEAT. If the stress is continually increased to ultimate stress, it will begin to weaken and then suddenly fracture. Ultimate stress is the maximum stress a material can ever undergo before it starts to weaken and fractures. All the while between yield and fracture, energy is being released from the material as heat.

A progressive collapse infers that structural components, in this case steel beams and columns, are deforming and fracturing at a very high rate. I propose that the countless steel components, deforming and fracturing in a matter of seconds, released enough energy in the form of heat to melt a portion of the debris, thus causing the pools of molten steel at the bottom. Any discussion is welcomed, especially considering that I am not sure how strain-rate effects would affect my supposition.

Re:The official story defies rationality

[nephridium]

Thanks for the elaborate explanation. If I get you correctly you're saying that the steel beams' yield stress was decreased by the heat induced by the burning fuel; this weakening led to the deformation (i.e. collapse) of the steel which (since steel heats up when bent) increased the temperature passed the melting point of steel. It does sound plausible, but I'm still quite apprehensive about the latter part. It would be great if there where any formulas or experiments to back it up, i.e. setting a steel structure on fire, waiting until it collapses and determining whether or not there is molten steel on the ground.

This might also aid in building better skyscrapers in the future. After seeing those two planes fly into the buildings I would never have guessed they would literally pulverize like that (who actually did??). The 'pan-caking' that took place was supposed to be due to a simultaneous/uniformly distributed weakening of the main pillars on all sides of the buildings?

And then there was WTC7 - the official story states that there was a fire in the 5th to 7th floor and somehow the two skyscrapers caused structural damage to it (falling debris??) so it would pulverize in the same fashion as they did. Any more details? - Not from the official investigation.. - It would be great if we knew for sure how that building with basically just a fire burning somewhere could get utterly annihilated like that. This is the first (and as of yet, only) steel frame building that collapsed like that supposedly due to the fire. The lack of explanation also means that this could happen again anytime, even without any terrorist involvement.. Due to a very patchy official investigation (no other investigation were permitted!) we have learned nothing from the WTC7 collapse and wouldn't know how to prevent such a thing from happening in the future!

Re:The official story defies rationality

[nevergleam]

It is unfortunate that the official investigation was so rushed. People wanted answers, they were given them, and they were not correct, as the story has been revised multiple times. It should be noted however, that the quick disposal of the steel is not out of the ordinary. When the I-880 connector collapsed last month in the Bay Area, the steel was very quickly disposed of, and the professor who got the grant to study the collapse only had a small number of days to go to the steel recycler and actually reclaim the larger steel elements essential to the investigation. This however, does not excuse how poorly the aftermath was handled at Ground Zero.

Back to the heat from collapse...
I'm not arguing that the softening steel exposed to fire is contributing much heat to itself to melt, but rather that 80 stories of pancaking steel and concrete released enough energy and generated enough friction as well that there was sufficient heat to melt pockets of debris. As for experimenting, the event is non-repeatable, since no one is going to build a structure of this magnitude simply to collapse it, and high-rise collapses of this magnitude have never occurred before.

To address the fire, I would like to say that skyscrapers don't collapse from fire because none of them were under the same conditions, which included burning jet fuel and exposed, non-fireproofed steel. Bare structural steel is usually fireproofed; concrete-encased steel is considered adequately fireproofed just by being concrete-encased. In the case of the WTC, the planes crashed through the side of the building and cut out about roughly 1/4 of the columns, and shattered the core's concrete cover, typically 1.5 inches thick (probably more in this case), thus exposing the steel. Even further, the steel supporting the floor was fire-proofed, and since fireproofing is very brittle, it all got knocked off by the impact (The reason they don't fireproof steel bridges is that the vibrations in the bridge caused by traffic are enough to cause steel fireproofing to spall off). The World Trade Center buildings are truly exceptional cases.

WTC 7 is a complete mystery, so any theory is valid at this point. It's plausible that side impact significantly damaged the structure, as other WTC buildings suffered similar damage. I think the prevailing alternative explanation is that eutectic reactions, which means some sort of sulfites caused steel to vaporize in spots (so far as I understood it), as steel pulled from that building had vaporized pockets. The source of the sulfites is up for speculation; explosives (sounds ridiculous to me) or burning furniture (even more ridiculous to me) could be at fault. Sounds crazy to me.

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why.

[INCOG MAN]

You seem to be carring the torch pretty high there for black people in the past, and the present and the future. Maybe you could spare some sense of outrage for a white person today. No, I didn't think so. That's exactly why I've changed my entire outlook on the situation. You'll never change until it happens to you personally. You'll boohoo away about "tolerance" as reality smacks you dead in the face. Or some place else. Deep down inside you know this to be very true. Your only hope is the gated community where you type away your white hate. Where you show just how Hollywood you think you are to your cocktail party chums. Get real.

Very few of these stories were compelling

[SlappyBastard]

They bitch about the Halliburton beast, but totally ignore the fact people stopped caring long ago because they agree, of all damned things. Fairly similar point per the climate stuff.

It's not that people don't care, it's that we've already heard some version of most of this stuff.

this list makes sence

[mr_musan]

Yeah its quite obvious to any one that reads this list why it was censored, it goes against pretty much every think the us media and its boss the us government corporation has been saying for years. One can't just go reporting this stuff it would never make sense to most people, as many comments on this topic have proven.

No just defies ideological belief

[DumbSwede]

Designed to be struck by a fully fueled 747 you say. And how many Megastructures did they fly fully fueled 747s into to test this? Buildings and bridges are designed to withstand lots of damage in theory, and yet several large bridges have come down in the past few decade under circumstances they were "designed" to withstand.

There was an overpass that recently collapsed after a tanker truck accident. The steel and concrete melted and that was with 1/6 the amount of fuel that a 747 carries. Keep in mind the steel doesn't have to "melt" just soften. You ever see ye-old smithy making horseshoes? He doesn't melt them into a mold, he heats them up so the can be bent easily with a hammer.

The two towers quite clearly started their collapse at the point of impact where the planes went in. The fact that they went straight down is because they are FUCKING HUMONGOUSLY HEAVY AND BIG. Once they start to collapse it is called pancaking. It is a well know phenomenon caused by trillions of ergs of pent up potential energy in the form of gravity -- the energy to lift all the stuff in the first stuff to enormous heights.

I'm quite sure my explanations will be inadequate for you. Logical explanation is impervious to someone that chooses to believe something for ideological reasons -- political or religious.

Re:No just defies ideological belief

[Anonymous Coward]

Any sources for that truck accident? I hope it's not a long suspense bridge.

And what about WTC 7? Where did the supposed fires come from that lead to its destruction? Had the terrorists made an invisible plane?

BTW trying to find out what exactly happened has nothing to do with political or religious ideology. The problem is that the (bestselling) 911 report, after such a long investigation, still left too much account for. It, along with the generally accepted official flow of events, was NOT as detailed as it should have been to dispence all "cooky theories". And I am usually very critical towards any sort of 'new theories'.

Re:No just defies ideological belief

[DumbSwede]

This was a big news story a few weeks back. At the time they mentioned the gallons of fuel and I immediately googled to compare it to the fuel capacity of a 747 and was shocked how much fuel a 747 needs. Ferrying 500 people upto 12,000 miles if fuel-efficient compared to the same distance by car, but it is still A LOT of fuel.

Here is a CBS story and here is a googling of 396 other mentions.

As to why WTC7 collapsed, why would our Government feel the need to collapse an un-hit building? It would surely just lead people like you to say "what about WTC7?!?!" WTC7 was smaller than the other two towers, really big to be sure, but smaller. While the two towers collapsed straight downward their debris shot out at their bases, with not just tons of material, but with hundreds of thousands of tons of material (together the two main towers weighed approximately a MILLON tons!), much of which slammed into the base of WTC7. The fact that it didn't collapse immediately is similar to why the other towers didn't collapse immediately. Once huge structures like these are compromised it can take minutes or hours for the sagging support columns to finally deform so much that they reach a point where those above them snap and give way completely. Add to this there were fires in WTC7 that where not being attended to due to all the attention on the other buildings and the difficulty of getting past the afore mentioned debris. While the two main towers may have been designed on paper to withstand an airplane hit -- WTC7 was never designed to withstand being bulldozed at its base with what amounts to hundreds of bulldozers simultaneously at huge velocity.

Again, I am sure your unconvinced, because no mater how many logical explanations I can provide your camp will hang on anything that seems anomalous to support a conspiracy theory that validates a certain view of our government. No matter that you or Sean Penn or Rosie O'Donnell or thousands of other bloggers have no training or expertise to decide what is anomalous or not.

Re:No just defies ideological belief

[mpe]

There was an overpass that recently collapsed after a tanker truck accident. The steel and concrete melted and that was with 1/6 the amount of fuel that a 747 carries.

This might be relevent if the structure in question was 1/6th the size of WTC1 or WTC2. Not only is that not the case steel reinforced concrete is more vulnerable to fire than steel alone. Steel is a good conductor of heat whereas concrete is a poor conductor of heat.

Keep in mind the steel doesn't have to "melt" just soften. You ever see ye-old smithy making horseshoes? He doesn't melt them into a mold, he heats them up so the can be bent easily with a hammer.

A blacksmith generally heats them up by placing them in a furnace. In ye olde fashioned forge there'd be at least one other person operating a set of bellows. If it were possible to get the metal hot enough by applying a candle flame to one end then that's what they would have done.

Re:No just defies ideological belief

[DumbSwede]

So 9-11 conspiracy theorists say the towers couldn't come down because "steel doesn't melt" this is a direct quote from Rosie O'Donnell -- so I provide two facts, steel doesn't have to melt to become weakened, and a steel and concrete overpass where fire was enough to bring it down. But does not counter Rosie's argument? Not in the mind of 9-11 theorists, who now have to make linear extrapolations from the amount of fuel to conclude the example has no bearing. Actual building engineers have gone over this and concluded the fire and forces involved were enough to bring the buildings down, I merely provide another example that shows the concept that fire can melt steel is sound. The folks at PBS and NPR are hardly shills for a Bush cover-up and they conclude in investigative reports that there were two factors leading to the buildings' collapsing. One the initial explosion blasted insulation away from the supporting columns and two that once the support members began to sage they pulled away from the outer shell of the building thus losing all support and initiated the pancaking already mentioned. Conditions never anticipated by the original architects.

But what does it matter what I say, you are bound and determined to conclude what you want. In your world there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of government agents frantically working to suppress the truth. All on board and approving the slaughter of thousands of American citizens for some vague and ill-defined purpose, because people with money and power can never have enough, and like step 2 for the underpants gnomes this gives it to them somehow. And amazing not one of them ever come forward to denounce the huge fraud, when in general politicians can't even cover up a the most innocuous in house memos.

This is not news.

[Anonymous Coward]

These 25 Articles are NOT news.

They are opinion pieces made to look like real news.

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why.

[INCOG MAN]

Isolated instances? I don't think so. Did you happen to know that 36,000 white women were raped by blacks in the year 2005? Versus somewhere less than 10 the other way around? How many white girls, crying with their legs up in stirrups in hospital ER's, getting the rape test because of "DIVERSITY"!!!! 36,000 THOUSAND. Do you EVEN care? Did you bother to take the time to look into the Wichita Massacre? Or are you too busy being outraged at what happened a hundred years ago in some backwoods southern town? I love your little metaphor about the Sky falling. With the Illegal Immigration Hordes coming to this land, the time for people like you is getting slim indeed. You may wish to rethink a few things because this kind of thing is coming to a fine white fool like yourself. And you know it. You just won't admit it because you're whole fantasy world will come crashing down.

Re: Steel and Jet Fuel

[evought]

Yeah, I've been through the NIST numbers a few times. Regardless of the reason the buildings fell: Poor work. They set their model inputs to give them their expected outputs. If I had done that in the Pentagon and published it, I hope they would have shot me.

1) Less than a gallon of jet fuel per *ton* of steel. The steel was interconnected and would dissipate heat rapidly. That's like throwing an oil lamp in the back of my truck and watching it come apart.

2) No evidence whatsoever that the fires were that hot for any length of time, especially near to the time of collapse. Their numbers assume steady oxygen flow, which a hole in the top of the building and thick, black smoke does not indicate. Nor does a fireman climbing past the level of the impact and radioing down that the fires were controllable (in one of the two towers). In their 'test', they provided oxygen to get it to the temperature they wanted. They spend no time whatsoever justifying their assumptions or showing how their model responds to different regimes. When the model generated what they wanted, that was 'proof'. The reason they did not is because their numbers don't work without those assumptions. Why would all three buildings be driven into the same failure mode? Why would differences in temperature, structural damage, contents, construction, etc., not cause different failures? Perhaps their model could be made to work, but they never *tried*. What process (or flaw, other than the foam, which was just a redundancy anyway) forced all three buildings into that failure mode and prevented them from failing in other ways? It's the difference between a diagnosis and a description.

3) Even if the temperature were that high at the top, how does a weakening at the *top* of the structure explain the complete disintegration of the rest of the structure? Their numbers and their model completely ignores most of the integrity and redundancy of the design, particularly in sections *undamaged* by fire or impact. It's like a model of dominoes, except that, in real life, the dominoes are glued together. There is no explanation whatsoever for the fall straight down, into the intact structure, instead of the damaged section falling to one side, where there was no resistance. In one building, without further explanation, that might be a fluke. In three buildings, that's worthy of serious questions. Anything is possible, but *why*? Again, what process, action, or flaw, forced the buildings into that failure mode and barred all others?

Even without being fodder for conspiracy theorists, the study is obviously shoddy and incomplete. Even without positing additional sabotage, the fact that the failure of every redundancy and every safety system of a building *designed to withstand aircraft strikes* was not better investigated is criminally negligent. Buildings are still being constructed essentially the same way worldwide. If the NIST report is right, then there needs to be a massive overhauling of building codes and material standards (exactly what many industry comments to the report stated) because a fundamental understanding of construction is flawed. The fact that only minor changes have resulted says to me that the government doesn't believe the results either.

As far as talk of demolition goes, it explains the collapse as well or better than NISTs simulation, if only because NIST did such a half-hearted job and because, at this point, there is no longer any physical evidence to examine. It's not just "conspiracy nuts" criticizing them, but also qualified professionals. The way the buildings fell is a legitimate question; some people go too far looking for answers and the people paid to do it did not look far enough.

The big problem is that the incident was not a single collapse, but a series of collapses with an identical progression and only two of them sharing an initial cause (yes, I am aware of the generators in Building 7). NIST approached it the same way doctors often approach a single, isolated death ("It was raining a

Interesting

[Evets]

After seeing this list, I picked an item and decided to try Digging it to see what the response would be.

Not a single Digg since I submitted it nearly 3 hours ago. The story submitted just after it has received 7 Diggs, just prior to it 5 Diggs. Granted, the political section of Digg isn't highly trafficed, but the majority that do traffic it in my experience either lean pretty hard left or are Ron Paul supporters.

Maybe the editors at large were accurate in their assessment that the stories are not of general interest to the community.

Yes, the list itself is on the whole pretty liberal - but reviewing the list it looks like these are all articles that people should be very concerned about. Perhaps it is because the issues generally are fairly complex - i.e. you can't really truly understand the stories with a quick blurb.

The story that I submitted was in regards to the Office of Special Counsel being investigated for Political Corruption (not unlike the US Attorney Scandal) and for not actually defending any whistleblowers which is one of the primary functions of the Office.

Re:Yes, Fire can cause steel structures to collaps

[labnet]

A steel/concrete building has never collapsed from fire.
A horizontal bridge design is no comparison to a vertical skyscraper.
Bridges like the one you have shown are tension loaded spans sitting on huge bearings to allow contraction and expansion.
I notice the structure underneath the truck suffered little damage. Why didn't it pancake? See they are silly arguments unless you use engineering process and experiment to determine cause an effect.

Oh, my bad. Better get more tuned in.

[twitter]

#14 was about KBR, a contractor, not the KGB.

How clumsy of me. I'm not sure the people that are put into those detention centers will know the difference either but it's nice of you to notice. I commend your astute reading.

Iran was was given parts for a nuclear reactor, not a bomb.

That's great news, all I ever hear about is bombs. If they were building a bomb, we'd have to steal their oil.

Exaggeration may help get people's attention, but not in a positive way.

Yeah, that whole Iraq is an immediate threat to the safety of the US kind of backfired. It's at times like this that I just wish broadcast media would cover important issues in an honest way. That's what we are talking about isn't it?

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why.

[INCOG MAN]

Jews ARE the number one problem. The common denominator to all this shit. Those Bastards will have us in a war with Iran (Iraq is a Zionist thing) very soon and then everybody will be talking about them. I can't wait. The lying Zionist/chabadist Media. Everybody with a tech background knows of the Zionist electronic hijinks Mossad gets into. Oh, I forgot, I was talking to a Jew. Sorry. Don't worry all us goyim are stupid and don't know what's going on.

Conspiracy Theorists Pull One Over on /,

[MSTCrow5429]

This is nutty crap. It's Cheney is evil, Israel and Jews are Nazis, the US is ruining the world, and George Bush blew up the Twin Towers. Maybe they weren't censored but instead largely ignored(after all, this kind of dreck is all over the internet), but no self-respecting news media would sully itself with such zany and radical conspiracy theories?

Re:Conspiracy Theorists Pull One Over on /,

[jnelson4765]

Let's take a look at this, shall we?

Cheney is evil

I didn't see that anywhere in the list. It's not a bad postulation, though. He definitely beats Nixon for henious political thuggery.

Israel and Jews are Nazis

ummm... okay... That'd be a neat trick.

the US is ruining the world

Well, I see wars of aggression and mass pollution as "ruining the world". Dunno about you, though.

George Bush blew up the Twin Towers

That'd be a tough thing to prove, seeing as how he was in Florida at the time.

no self-respecting news media would sully itself with such zany and radical conspiracy theories

One of the requirements of science is to challenge assumptions. Many of the principles we rely on for the functioning of our technological society were first postulated by people concidered crackpots and lunatics by their peers.

And BTW - the story on the Iraq war's start and ties to OPEC was done by the reporter that exposed a major bribery scandal in the UK. He's also the one that exposed the 2000 election corruption in Florida.

But I'm sorry - that's all "crazy-talk".

Re:Conspiracy Theorists Pull One Over on /,

[sgt_doom]

Dood, you are so absolutely right, dood!!

And that naughty Warren Commission - it really wasn't staffed by half the people President Kennedy fired.

And that naughty General Walker - he really wasn't a super rightwing nut and John Bircher that President Kennedy had to fire with extreme prejudice (having another general relieve him of duty at the time).

And that naughty stuff about Oswald ONLY qualifying as marksman (and barely so - I realize civilians aren't aware that "marksman" is the lowest possible rifle qualification - it sucks!).

Dood, you soooo nailed it. And George Bush didn't blow up the Twin Towers - he wasn't flying the aircraft armed with that short-pulse gamma laser and neither did he ever work at Securacom (like his cousin Wirt Walker and his brother Marvin) nor Eureka GGN!

The physics shows controlled demolition.

[Futurepower(R)]

From the article:

# No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns.

# WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" Jones asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors--and intact steel support columns--the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass.

Re:The physics shows controlled demolition.

[iminplaya]

Oh hell, I don't know. Let's just build another set out there in the desert, fly some radio controlled planes into 'em, and see what happens. No other buildings had 250 tons fly into them either. Maybe somebody wanted to knock them down because they thought they were butt ugly. If you wanna see something really freaky, watch the Simpsons episode where they had 'N Sync on, and they shot a cruise missile at the Mad Magazine building. It fell exactly the same way. I can only draw my conclusions from the proven lies of the past, and note that nothing changed since then. Everybody managed to forget Watergate and Vietnam, and they put all the same old baldheads from that era right back into where they were before 1970. So, of course I'm going to expect the same thing from them. I honestly didn't expect them to blow the dust off of Operation Northwoods and actually pull it off. A little more discretion was in order, but then that word doesn't exist in the head of the drunken frat brat that was put in front of the camera.

Re:The physics shows controlled demolition.

[EverlastingPhelps]

# WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" Jones asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors--and intact steel support columns--the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass.

It is there. It was .6 seconds, which was 10% of the time of the entire event. Please make a mental note to not hire anyone who has a physics degree from BYU.

Sigh

[ShakaUVM]

Gatekeeper Effect != Censorship.

News Organizations can only report on a small number of stories per day, out of hundreds of interesting story leads. At some level, certain stories get picked over others. This is called the Gatekeeper effect.

Censorship is when the government kills a story.

Irks me when /. uses 'censorship' and its the wrong word.

Re:Sigh

[Scrameustache]

Censorship is when the government kills a story.
Irks me when /. uses 'censorship' and its the wrong word. Actually, it irks you when it is used correctly.

You have taken a specialty use of the term to be it's one true meaning. Crack open a dictionary, you'll learn a few things.

Re:Sigh

[ShakaUVM]

That's a circular argument. You quoted some popular "definitions" of censorship, which, as I mentioned in my other post, are being used incorrectly.

You can't say that because some people spell it purty, that purty is the correct spelling. Though there are sea changes in language, which can provide a valid counterargument, this is simply a case of idiots not knowing the definition between censorship and the gatekeeper effect.

Re:Sigh

[Scrameustache]

this is simply a case of idiots not knowing the definition between censorship and the gatekeeper effect. Censorship means any suppression of information. You're the idiot who argues against the dictionary.

Why don't you cough up a lik to a definition from a credible source that supports your interpretation, and a link to a definition of your precious "gatekeeper effect" (from the same source so it's consistent).

Re:Sigh

[ShakaUVM]

You've never studied government, then.

Censorship is technically the restriction of speech by the government. It has popular meanings which are more expansive than the real definition. Dictionaries publish popular definitions, so you appear to be quite dimwitted when you quote it, or worse, the Google everything-under-the-sun definition.

Most people incorrectly to use it any restriction of speech. But even in the article it doesn't meet even this criteria for censored, since it calls them stories which didn't see the light of day, which is the textbook definition of the Gatekeeper effect.

Sheer ignorance.

Yes, and it *is* happening here

[LandruBek]

We have "it can't happen here" syndrome

Quite right. And it is now happening in America, the thin end of the wedge and all that. Much depends on who is president next, whether that wedge is driven in deeper or broken off where it is now. Unfortunately not everything changes when the president leaves: America is stuck with laws like CALEA and USA PATRIOT, refuse-to-die programs descended from Carnivore/TIA, and the ridiculous "Do Not $FOO" lists (for FOO in fly, hire, sell-to).

Ironic that for a long time there was very little domestic terrorism and most figured that terrorism couldn't or wouldn't happen in the USA. Having discarded that notion, so many have forgotten how tyrrany has been, is now, and will be for ever a threat, until the world ends.

E. Howard Hunt's deathbed JFK murder confession

[Anonymous Coward]

E. Howard Hunt's deathbed JFK murder confession

Former CIA agent, Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt names the men who killed Kennedy

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/300 407deathbedconfession.htm

Nice troll

[Anonymous Coward]

He really walked into that one!

Re:I Hate that FAT DISGUSTING FUCK dick cheyney..

[the_mushroom_king]

I doubt he's incompetent.

It takes brains to dismantle our freedoms a piece at a time.

If there is anything left resembling the country our forefathers envisioned when his term is up, I bet we will find that the atrocities he and the rest of his oil cronies committed are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

I personally find it sad that we are so easily distracted by the gossip fed to us as "news" by the corporate media, while Bush's team rapes the constitution.

Advertisers: target audience quality vs. quantity

[slash.duncan]

Little late to the discussion but WTH...

Or do you really believe that people are more interested in Paris Hilton's jail term than in the president wiretapping them? Those Lindsay Lohan stories really must represent the public's true interest. Look! Look at the funny monkey! Look, Britney has no panties!

Keep in mind that at least where TV is ad supported, it's not necessarily the number of folks interested, but the /quality/ of folks interested.

Ask yourself this, because you know both the ad execs and TV execs do: Given the typical geek or scientifically minded individual against the typical "OMG, Britney's got no panties!!111one!, which one is going to be EASIEST FOR THE AD BROKERS TO PROGRAM TO BUY THEIR SH*T, even tho they don't need it and it wouldn't have even occurred to them to want it without the ad, even tho they're just getting to the point of owing less on it than their only two year old car is worth, etc?

How many people that actually think for themselves have to be in the audience to make up for just ONE "programmable zombie"?

Want to know why there's so little worth watching on TV, why the reality shows and celeb news and the like seem to be the "gray goo" subliming everything in their path? Now you know. It's because the folks that watch that sort of crap are the best, the most easily programmable, ad targets in the world!

Again, /how/ many folks that can actually think, and thus aren't so likely to fall for the ads, does it actually take to replace one "programmable zombie"? 10? 50? 100? No /wonder/ there's so little decent on; so little that appeals to folks that can actually think, and worse yet (for the advertisers) actually /like/ to think!

It has been nearly a decade now since I dropped TV. I found it was a natural process. I was spending more and more time on the computer, something I could actually interact with, and on the net, interacting with others, and less and less time staring at the stupid boob tube. I don't really miss it, save for the news channels when something big goes down. Sometimes I'll catch some at a friend's house or something. A few programs are acceptable, but the ads... the first time I see them might be fine, but the moment they start repeating, I often find myself driven away, to find something else to do, something less insulting to my intelligence, my ability to actually research what I buy and make up my own mind, getting the required info from sources that actually respect me as a person with my own needs and wants, not as a "consuming machine" to be programmed to buy whatever's being pushed at me the hardest.

Duncan

They missed Tux500

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wait, that was just a slashdot censorship!

War Protesters

[NeuroManson]

Has anyone else noticed that the mainstream media outlets are hardly reporting on antiwar protests these days? It's almost to the point where they ignore them altogether. Hell, when was the last time anyone heard anything about Cindy Sheehan, other than what runs on antiwar websites?

Re:War Protesters

[tomhath]

Cindy Sheehan was funded by the DNC during the midterm election campaign. Once the election was over they didn't need her anymore. And besides, her antics were getting out of control so they dropped her. The antiwar protests will start getting publicity again as the next election nears. For now they don't serve anyone's interests.

Re:War Protesters

[Anonymous Coward]

People like to get together to protest the war in Iraq. We got it. Why do I need another article saying some people somewhere are protesting the war? I just assume that is the case, which means I will just need an article to tell me when no one is protesting since that would actually be news to me.

It's right in line with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying Israel and the US will be wiped out of existance. After the first 50 articles about that I just assume that is what he said yesterday, today and will say again tomorrow. My eyes slide right past articles that say today is the same as yesterday and the day before that and the day before ...

Re:War Protesters

[NeuroManson]

The irony of that is not lost on me, especially since then, Sheehan has confirmed this by quitting.

Re:Yes, Fire can cause steel structures to collaps

[Goaway]

A steel/concrete building has never collapsed from fire.

Yes, in all the long history of airliners crashing into world-class highrises, not a single one has collapsed, until now! There is certainly some foul play involved in how this event unfolded so differently from all the earlier, similar events!

Re: Steel and Jet Fuel

[Goaway]

They set their model inputs to give them their expected outputs.

Are you suggesting they should have been picking parameters that did not produce the observed outcome?

Who is currently the most powerful man in America?

[hey!]

It's not George Bush.

It's Joe Lieberman.

Political power is, mathematically, equal to the number of winning coalitions one can join. Joe Lieberman used to be a Democrat, but he's more aligned with Republicans. When he doesn't get what he wants, he threatens to join the Republican caucus and bring the Senate half of investigations into the Bush administration to a halt. That's how he got the committee assignments he wanted. That's how he go the "clean" Iraq supplemental. Except for the inestigations, it's a good deal for the Republicans. They get their policies passed, and hung on the Democrats.

Come 2008, if the Dems get one more seat, Joe will get his payback.

Oceania is at war with Eastasia

[Anonymous Coward]

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anytime a pretty white girl goes missing the media has feeding frenzy.

Really? How do you explain the media black-out of this missing White girl? If the races were reversed the names of the blacks would be known to everyone in the US.

Re: Steel and Jet Fuel

[LordVader717]

They should have thoroughly analysed the effects of different parameters, looked at the maximum conceivable damage, the minimal damage, and just how likely any of the possibilities were. It doesn't take any wild conspiracies to be able to point out that the investigation was shoddy, and putting the genuine questions in the same pot as crackpots who say it was Jews with nukes is is an insult to humanity.

Re:I Hate that FAT DISGUSTING FUCK dick cheyney..

[Anonymous Coward]

He shot a lawyer - does that count?

Continued FUD

[Hoskald]

I sense a disturbance in the Agenda....

Re:I Hate that FAT DISGUSTING FUCK dick cheyney..

[Schemat1c]

I doubt he's incompetent.

It takes brains to dismantle our freedoms a piece at a time. It doesn't take brains to steal candy from sleeping babies.

agreed but...

[kpharmer]

> In some respects I have always felt like this, but with the internet and my expanded access to information,
> I simply cannot avoid the feeling that the media's portrayal of politics is a ridiculous charade.

I generally agree with your entire post - including the above line. However:

1. The mainstream media's establishment of a single point of view, sense of values, etc sometimes improves the welfare of man. For example: blacks, gays, atheists, etc - while they may not get fully equal and completely respectful treatment will be presented far better than they are in many communities in the US - gradually improving the attitude of some members of those communities towards these groups of people. Likewise, non-mainstream cultural, religious and social ideas get some of the same benefits.

        Think about the civil rights struggle - how the civil war ended in 1865 yet one hundred years later protesters still had to struggle to get blacks in the south the vote and then forty years later one southern state (alabama i think) had a vote to remove the constitutional amendment that prohobited interacial marrage - and in some counties 80+% of the voters elected to keep that amendment. This kind of abnormal racism is gradually whittled away at by mainstream media in many ways (even if focusing on blacks and crimes results in one step backwards for every two forwards).

2. The internet is gradually becoming an extension of something worse than mainstream media - in which it can help enable audience members to reinforce even the most unsupportable views. Take racism in the south - the internet can help a group of racists plug into news interpretations only coming from fellow racists. They'll despise mainstream media as being too liberal and memorize all the arguments from the white supremists...

So, yeah - mainstream media in the US has generally supported a pro-business, status quo view that has generally insulated the population from reality. But it doesn't work perfectly for example, sometimes it pushes a very pro-administration view in which you aren't allowed to criticize the president (say, united states c.2004 re: bush) but at other times it pushes a very anti-administration view (say, united states c.1996 re: clinton).

Re:Yes, Fire can cause steel structures to collaps

[LordVader717]

Apart from the fact that what you say in your sarcasm is 100% correct, it is interesting to note that high-rise buildings have only otherwise been known to collapse because of earthquakes.

THANKYOU

[toby]

Apart from insane greed and militarism, the environmental catastrophe - where America is a major contributor - and US destabilisation of South America (which has been going on for decades) are also worth our time. That 9/11 was probably an inside job is not particularly surprising to non-Americans. The continued indifference of Americans to this, is somewhat more surprising.

By wrecking the planet we are destroying the greatest thing humankind has ever enjoyed; betraying everyone who ever lived, and everyone who comes after us.

#20 On nytimes.com Front Page Right Now

[dswartz]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/magazine/27Bottl e-t.html?hp

Re: Steel and Jet Fuel

[Goaway]

And what purpose would it serve, exactly, to investigate events that did not actually happen?

Re: Steel and Jet Fuel

[evought]

Yes, and to emphasize LordVader's comment, there is no guarantee their model is the correct one. If there is a large range of probable input parameters which was does not show the observed output, then it is likely that the *chosen model* is not the correct one. Perhaps the theory can be improved to not be as sensitive to inputs. More work can be done to show that those inputs are correct (for all three cases). Other theories or models can be developed which better explain the phenomena. Choosing your parameters to match the observation is not bad for a first step, but it is not an ending point for good science.

There is no reason to believe the assumptions underlying their models, and therefore, no reason to believe its output, that the impact lead to total collapse. Obviously, the building *did* collapse, but given that they were tasked to find out *why* means that the anthropic principle does not save their model. By succumbing to laziness, they completely ignore other causes or possible contributing circumstances:

1) Were there unexpected failures of design redundancies and over-engineering? Why did the design models fail? How do they need to be corrected?

2) Were there substandard materials or technologies present in the building? Were these materials properly installed and inspected? (FEMA did bring to light issues with the foam, but even they did not believe it was a major contributor) Who might have been responsible? How can the system be corrected to prevent this?

3) Did materials or technologies age, weather, or corrode in an unexpected fashion? Were they recently inspected? What does this mean for new building structures? (debris could have been examined for signs of corrosion or other problems)

4) Are there signs of other kinds of sabotage beside the obvious? Did the attackers take steps to maximize damage? (e.g. a basement bomb timed to coincide roughly with the impact, sabotaging fire-suppression systems, etc.)

These are not "extra credit" questions. They go to the core of what NIST was tasked to do and are largely unanswered. In many cases, the answer would have been "no," but clearly something had to be "yes." The building was designed with enough over-engineering, for instance, that the trusses could have magically disappeared and the building(s) should have supported itself between the core, the outer frame, and the cross ties. NIST only supposes that some load bearing members were materially weakened. The core itself should have stood no matter what the rest of the building did. Something caused the building and/or design to fail; it was their job to investigate.

As an aside, there is a barn in a pasture near here that has been abandoned for quite a while. It is a two story oak structure. The external load bearing members are completely rotted. They don't even touch the foundation any more. The entire barn is supported by a one-story interior wall which holds up the sills for the second floor. The sills, in turn, hold up the planking, the second floor walls, the roof, and hold the first floor suspended above the ground. It's been like that for years apparently. I had bets that it was going to fall this winter, but it is still there. It is amazing what a little over-engineering will do.

Re:Yes, Fire can cause steel structures to collaps

[Goaway]

Ok, sarcasm aside, please do point out an event similar to the one on 9/11 where the building did not collapse.

Here we go again! !@#$%!@#$

[ukemike]

Even on /. everyone is talking about stupid celebreties... here are the stories:

#1 Future of Internet Debate Ignored by Media
widely discussed here ignored or misunderstood elsewhere

#2 Halliburton Charged with Selling Nuclear Technologies to Iran
#3 Oceans of the World in Extreme Danger
there goes a major cornerstone of the global food supply!

#4 Hunger and Homelessness Increasing in the US

#5 High-Tech Genocide in Congo
minerals needed for electronics --> over 6 million dead

#6 Federal Whistleblower Protection in Jeopardy

# 7 US Operatives Torture Detainees to Death in Afghanistan and Iraq
Make you proud to be an American?

#8 Pentagon Exempt from Freedom of Information Act

#9 The World Bank Funds Israel-Palestine Wall

#10 Expanded Air War in Iraq Kills More Civilians
Collective punishment is a war crime

#11 Dangers of Genetically Modified Food Confirmed
mmmm franken-tortillas!!

#12 Pentagon Plans to Build New Landmines
we're the only contry that didn't sign onto the global ban

#13 New Evidence Establishes Dangers of Roundup
Hey that "safe" herbicide isn't so safe

#14 Homeland Security Contracts KBR to Build Detention Centers in the US
Concentration camps for liberals? or just for immigrants?

#15 Chemical Industry is EPA's Primary Research Partner
Fox guarding the hen house

#16 Ecuador and Mexico Defy US on International Criminal Court
I guess George, Dick, Condi, Rummy, and crew won't be hanging out in Acapulco after they retire

#17 Iraq Invasion Promotes OPEC Agenda
Was that part of the plan?

#18 Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story
discussed recently here but not much elsewhere

#19 Destruction of Rainforests Worst Ever
Our primary source of oxygen gets burned up into a major source of CO2

#20 Bottled Water: A Global Environmental Problem

#21 Gold Mining Threatens Ancient Andean Glaciers

#22 $Billions in Homeland Security Spending Undisclosed
Who's pocket are we lining?

#23 US Oil Targets Kyoto in Europe

#24 Cheney's Halliburton Stock Rose Over 3000 Percent Last Year
Can you say "war profiteer?" Good! I knew you could1

#25 US Military in Paraguay Threatens Region



Democracy only works when people are well informed about the decisions they have to make. Clearly ours isn't working.

Re: Steel and Jet Fuel

[Anonymous Coward]

the report appears to have investigated events that did not actually happen. a lot of people point to the structural weakening of steel, but when nist tested the structure of the steel, they had floors bending about 3 inches; when they did their model, they assumed the floors bent about 40 inches. go read some reports, then come back and nitpick. and maybe learn some science/physics/mechanics while you're at it.

Man, that's good kool aid!

[Scrameustache]

#18 Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story

Not that anyone here would RTFA anyways, but when I saw this I knew it wasn't worth my time. Because the official story is obviously the Truth and to challenge it is apocryphal?

No, just old news.

[BlueStraggler]

This story was in fact put out in December 2006. I know because according to my homepage, I submitted it to Slashdot on December 27, with the title "Network Neutrality top censored news story of 2007". It was rejected, of course.

No, Fires don't cause steel structures to collapse

[Scrameustache]

please do point out an event similar to the one on 9/11 where the building did not collapse. Madrid, 2005
Good BBC video on youTube.

"Project Censored" Censored?

[matchewg]

Project Censored has either been comprised mega corporations or slashdotted by a slew of slashdot users..

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why.

[CaffeineAddict2001]

I'm looking at where you got your statistics:

You forgot to mention that these statistics you are using don't differentiate between sexual assault and rape. So your rape-kit imagery is a bit misleading.

111,590 white victims - 44.5% of the offenders where white
36,620 black victims - 100% of offenders were black

All this tells us is that white guys don't like to sexually assault black women. (This is probably due to the media almost exclusively portraying white women as sexually attractive.)

Yes, 37,460 white women were sexually assaulted by blacks -- but 49,657 were sexually assaulted by whites.

IAAAMI

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an Aircraft Mishap Investigator. I've seen molten, pooled aluminum, and a few meters away, gently singed paper. This is not a conspiracy, it's physics. Post-crash fire is very complex. If there had been the quantity of explosives you propose, everybody who worked there would have set off the bomb dogs on their way home. Every single one.

However, you hate George Bush, so your religion makes you go "nah nah nah" to anything that sounds contrary. It had to be a conspiracy.

Who changed the definition of censorship? You!

[Scrameustache]

Last I heard, censorship is when The Man(tm) takes forcible action to squash a story that's damaging, incriminating, or otherwise detrimental to The Powers That Be(tm).
[...]
Somebody call Websters. Main Entry: censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring Listen to the pronunciation of censoring \sen(t)-s-ri, sen(t)s-ri\
Date: 1882

: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ;

Now what? You admit you're completely wrong, or you plow on ahead?

Re:Who changed the definition of censorship? You!

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Now what? You admit you're completely wrong, or you plow on ahead?

Uh...how about option (C) point out how absolutely obtuse you are in ignoring the meaning of the definition you just quoted. Conveniently, you have now justified my original post. Bravo! I've been needing a dictionary lackey for a while.

Now, what was your point again? Or were you just ineffectually trying to seem important to this debate?

Re:Who changed the definition of censorship? You!

[Scrameustache]

ignoring the meaning of the definition you just quoted. I suspected you would.

Re:Who changed the definition of censorship? You!

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Ah, so we can add "lack of reading comprehension" to your invaluable list of skills, eh?

I don't know what's more pathetic: your overblown "argument" or your inability to understand you've lost the debate.

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why.

[CaffeineAddict2001]

I live in an 800 SQ Ft townhouse is a largely hispanic community. Half my neighbors don't speak english. I don't lock my doors at night, nor do I feel a need to.

You are the xenophobic cowards that want America to become a gated community via Immigration reform.

Why "Project Censored" is a joke

[walterbyrd]

I went to Sonoma State, where Professor Carl Jensen teachers. I met him a few times. I have a few friends were attendend his class. Pathetically enough, "Project Censored" is probably SSU's greatest claim to fame - so I heard about it, a lot, while I was there.

The idea is that real news is being "censored" in favor of "junk-food news." But not censored in the ordinary definition of the word, but rather by Dr. Jensen's very own definition which is: "repression of information for *any* reason."

When Dr. Jensen says "censored" he means: "under-reported, in his opinion." Dr. Jensen claims to be opposed to sensationalism in the media. But isn't Dr. Jensen actually using the same tactics?

#24 Haliburton stock

[Anonymous Coward]

#24 Cheney's Halliburton Stock Rose Over 3000 Percent Last Year
Can you say "war profiteer?" Good! I knew you could1

Haliburton was fired up by Lyndon Baines Johnson, Democrat, the president who gave us the Vietnam War. His still living widow, Lady Bird Johnson, Democrat, still owns a lion's share of the stock and still helps to manage Haliburton. You didn't know that because it's been supressed.

The story is more accurately Democrat war profiteers are still at it. Or that there is no difference between the people you adore and the people you hate. Or the Johnson was a Democrat. You're a twit who gets his news from NPR.

Re:#24 Haliburton stock

[alva_edison]

Yes, NPR the source that brought us this tidbit.

Re:No, Fires don't cause steel structures to colla

[Goaway]

Hardly an equivalent situation sans the impact damage from an airliner hitting the building, and the energy from burning jet fuel. Try again!

Re:No, Fires don't cause steel structures to colla

[Scrameustache]

Try again! Stop trolling.

Re:I Hate that FAT DISGUSTING FUCK dick cheyney..

[PoliTech]

Anonymous Troll owes the Anonymous Coward 1 Benjamen!

/Wonders how Anonymous Coward will collect on the bet?

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why.

[Eli Gottlieb]

If I and my people run so much, where the fuck are my damned dividends?

Now first of all, I'll have you know that Chabad is an outreach organization of the Hasidic movement that attempts to make Jews observe our religion more. They tend to oppose Zionism, because Zionism came from the secular Jews who demanded that we stop waiting for the Messiah before getting a national home of our own.

Everybody with a tech background knows of the Zionist electronic hijinks Mossad gets into. Define "tech background". Also, please explain the "Zionist" in "Zionist electronic hijinks". It doesn't make sense.

Iraq is a Zionist thing Really? How does America's invasion of Iraq create a Jewish nation-state? Answer: It doesn't, a Jewish nation-state already exists. Stop using "Zionist"/"Zionism" as a pejorative word for everything you despise about Jews. Frankly, nothing is really Zionist any longer. Zionism was fulfilled in May of 1948 with the creation of the modern State of Israel.

Don't worry all us goyim are stupid and don't know what's going on. I guess nobody tells anti-Semites that "goy" and "goyim" are treated as swear-words in Jewish households nowadays. Only a bastard like you actually elicits their use -- you bigoted goy.

Jews ARE the number one problem. How about we do this the old-fashioned way: you try to kill us, we beat you, we eat.

see: Conrad Black et al

[gobbo]

The ongoing trial of Lord Conrad Black is highly instructive in regards to ownership directing media agenda. It is coming to light (as incidental information in the trial) that 'Lord' Black had a strong hand in the political framework of his papers' presentation of the issues, and had a falling out with his good friend Izzy Asper over support for conservative vs. liberal (i.e. centrist, since this is referring to Canada) politicians. Black's restrictive directives to his senior editors has been well documented and corroborated by those no longer under threat of 'black'listing. Black and Asper's paper holdings at the time pretty much amounted to a newsprint monopoly in Canada.

Now, this is in Canada where we have a national public broadcaster and, we like to think, slightly higher journalistic standards and irreverence than S. of the border (not that I agree, it's just popular opinion). You see, we can wear anarchist T-shirts or have posters on our walls demanding the arrest of our leaders, with impunity (for now). The reality is obviously different, and we have all kinds of structural restrictions on what is allowable discourse (lobbying practices, hate, libel, and CRTC regulations, for instance). Point being, a representative democracy manages propaganda as a balancing act, using definition of terms, misdirection, subtle pressures, regulation, and immense repetition to obscure uncomfortable truths.

The corporate and government media in a democracy cannot fully effectively tell you what to think, but they can and do effectively suggest what to think ABOUT.

Whoopee

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's censorship blamed on the corporate media and all that, chances are it's merely far left propaganda that would be laughed at if all the facts were revealed by these groups that cry "censorship" every five minutes for whatever reason. Have they blamed Halliburton for the rape of Darfur yet? Global warming? The lack of federally funded child care? C'mon all you latte drinkers. Don't spend your time reading eclectic Slashdot articles! Take action! Be real men, put on your skirts, grow pony tails, make clowns of yourselves carrying shrill, grammatically incorrect protest signs around in public places, and above all, be ANGRY!!!!

Re:No, Fires don't cause steel structures to colla

[Goaway]

Not accepting bullshit arguments is trolling, now?

Back up your arguments with facts, or shut up.

Re:No, Fires don't cause steel structures to colla

[labnet]

Then what about WTC7?

Kudlow and..

[lilfields]

Not to be an information nazi, but it was "Kudlow and Cramer", not "Kudlow and Kramer". The show is now "Kudlow and Company" as Jim Cramer now has his own show "Mad Money." Anyhow, the press will publish whatever makes money, they don't censor news per se; The press is one instance of "the market" ruling.

A story that should have been on the list.

[niktemadur]

On October 10, 2006, Iraqi insurgents launched a nighttime attack on Forward Base Falcon, basically the largest US ammo storage facility in all of Iraq.

CNN reported the attack as breaking news, then after a quick official statement that there were no casualties, all information on it disappeared the following day, never to return. Not a single mainstream news source reported a follow-up on the event. Afterwards, even liberal talk radio hosts would mutter and evade the question by an occasional caller and quickly move on to something else, almost as if they were warned that if they talked about it, their ass was toast.

Look it up on Google, there's plenty of blogs with bits and pieces of the story, along with tons of speculation:
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=%22 forward+base+falcon%22&btnG=Google+Search

There are a couple of videos out there, one by Al-Jazeera and at least two by US soldiers with camcorders, all of them showing the same thing: a series of explosions, punctuated by a gigantic mushroom cloud explosion that lit up Baghdad like it was daytime.
Here's a YouTube link to one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1ZvWJXoWXM

Some speculative estimates say that 300+ US soldiers died in the attack. At least, a large fortune in weaponry was blown to bits. Isn't it strange that the story was completely blacked out from the mainstream media so that the electorate did not get a chance to see this just prior to the US elections? And how nobody has said a peep about it since then?

I'd consider this as 2007 censorship, since the silence continues, so that it's no longer just a story about the attack, but of the news blackout. Nobody's asking questions nor making comments, not even to disprove catastrophic losses. It's as if the attack was officially erased from recent history, except for a bit of rogue evidence making the rounds in obscure corners of the internet. Now this is censorship.

16 & 25 - US intransigence re ICC, int'l law

[toby]

Amnesty International has a report on this situation.

US Threats to the International Criminal Court

The United States of America is the only state that is actively opposed to the new International Criminal Court. US opposition to the Court can be traced back to the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) in 1998, where the USA was one of only 7 states to vote against adoption of the Statute. Reportedly a major reason for not supporting adoption of the Statute stems from the refusal of the international community to grant the United Nations Security Council (of which the USA is a veto holding permanent member) control over which cases the Court considered, instead favouring an independent Prosecutor who - subject to safeguards and fair trial guarantees - would make such decisions.

On 31 December 2000, however, President Clinton signed the Rome Statute, which was a positive step in favour of the Court. However, the US position has changed dramatically since the new administration under President Bush took office in 2001. On 6 May 2002, the US government took the unprecedented step of repudiating its signature of the Rome Statute and began a worldwide campaign to weaken the Court and to obtain impunity for all US nationals from the jurisdiction of the Court.

Amnesty International believes that the US concerns that the ICC will be used to bring politically motivated prosecutions against US nationals are wholly unfounded. The substantial safeguards and fair trial guarantees in the Rome Statute will ensure that such a situation would never arise.

This page provides information on two parts of the current US campaign against the ICC: impunity agreements and Security Council Resolution 1422. For further information on the USA and the ICC, please see the AI USA website, the AMICC website, the CICC website, or the Washington Working Group on the ICC website.

US Impunity Agreements

The USA is currently approaching governments around the world and asking them to enter into illegal impunity agreements. These agreements provide that a government will not surrender or transfer US nationals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes to the ICC, if requested by the Court. The agreements do not require the USA or the other state concerned to investigate and, if there is sufficient evidence, to prosecute such a person in US Courts. Indeed in many cases it would be impossible for US courts to do so, as US law does not include many of the crimes under the Rome Statute.

On 1 July 2003 the USA announced the withdrawal of military assistance to 35 states who are parties to the Rome Statute and have refused to sign an impunity agreement with the USA. On 8 December 2004, the USA went even further, withdrawing economic support from states that still refuse to sign impunity agreements. The withdrawal of this economic funding threatens to undermine counter-terrorism efforts, peace process programs, anti-drug trafficking initiatives, truth and reconciliation commissions and HIV/Aids education, and threatens states such as Jordan, Ireland, Cyprus, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela and South Africa.

The USA claims that these agreements are legal and in conformity with Article 98 of the Statute. However, Amnesty International has conducted a legal analysis which demonstrates that US Impunity Agreements do not fall under Article 98, and states that enter into such agreements with the USA are in breach of their obligations under international law. This legal analysis (International Criminal Court: US efforts to obtain impunity for genocide, crimes against humanity and war

#3 I feel is the most important

[vuffi_raa]

I am constantly amazed at the lack of oceanic knowledge that people have including from educated people at my work: they have said when I lectured them about it.... most tuna are from farms. oysters are not alive. pollutants don't spread through the ocean they stay in a confined area. we can't deplete fish populations by overfishing because they repopulate quickly. when you cut sharkfins off and throw them back the sharks are okay. no one uses driftnets anymore. no one goes whaling anymore. ----and a number of others.

Halliburton is now no longer a US company.

[PHAEDRU5]

It's gone somewhere else. Mostly to escape Ted Kennedy. A move I respect. I mean, do *you* want to end up drowned in a car owned by a Democrat candidate for President, with you panties in the glove compartment?

Yeah, I'd make a break for Bermuda too.

Wow!

[PHAEDRU5]

All that text looks REALLY REALLY important.

Having actually read it, howver, it actually looks vacuous.

I encourage you to write after your verbal diarrhea has, you know, dried up. Take a pill, or something. Or get laid.

Condense your philosophy to a working sentense, and Christ!!! how the money will roll in.

Good kuck

Hore-hay Boooooosh
--

oh, wrong reply

[Scrameustache]

That wasn't replying to a post talking about WTC7, that was... another reply of yours in the same thread under the same title on the same subject!?!

Damn, that's still trolling.

Re:16 & 25 - US intransigence re ICC, int'l la

[Quila]

The ICC is meant for states that do not police their own people. It would, for example, bring Milosevic's troops to justice where he would protect them. It is being used against Charles Taylor, since he is outside of his country, and there's nobody else to prosecute him.

But how many people has the US prosecuted for such violations? Quite a few.

The US does not want to get into this because of the threat of politically-motivated claims and trial by kangaroo court by exactly the kind of anti-American people who compiled this list. In the court, many rights guaranteed to Americans by the Constitution do not exist, such as trial by jury. I applaud this instance of my government actually protecting the constitutional rights of its citizens.

If you doubt that selective prosecution, then ask yourself why none of the over 100 crimes (including child rape) committed by UN forces (Annan admitted it) have been investigated. With all the atrocities committed in Iraq by the insurgents, why didn't they even look into Zarqawi?

A non-story shouldn't be on the list

[Quila]

This is pure tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory, and not a very good one. Conspiracy theorists normally get the basic facts straight and twist them. This one has the 4th ID being from Fort Bliss while back in reality they're from from Fort Hood. Al Jazeera propaganda, pure and simple.

Wow, do you realize how dumb that comment was?

[Anonymous Coward]

2 things.

First, there was no "parent post to the post to which you were replying to", and second, if that was simply a mistake, then the post you were replying to WAS WRITTEN BY HIM.

I always enjoy watching idiots like you make asses of themselves by telling others that they made asses of themselves.

He owned you, be a fucking man and stop trolling.

Re:No, Fires don't cause steel structures to colla

[Straif]

Call me crazy but maybe the large chunk taken out of the bottom 10-20 stories (which happen to be where the support trusses were located) as well as a building wide fire had something to do with that one.

Just a guess.

But then again the argument that "never in the history of 110 story buildings collapsing into neighboring 40 story buildings with funky architectural design have they ever collapsed" holds up equally well for this case.

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why.

[Lord Bitman]

Can't we all just get along and agree that neither story is newsworthy?

Never before or since, in the history of the world

[Futurepower(R)]

I am not convinced.

If a tall building can fall to powder and small pieces, in a symmetrical pile, I would never go into one. However, such a thing has never happened before or since, in the history of the world.

I saw some photos of the extremely heavy steel columns in the center of the WTC buildings. What caused them to get out of the way, so that the collapse could be symmetrical?

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why.

[Kelz]

Just because you do not agree with something does not erase the fact that it exists.