Slashdot Mirror
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'."
God, I would like to file a bug report...
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...
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.
/. 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.
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.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
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.
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.
...nah, that couldn't be it.
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...
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
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."
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
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...
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
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'.
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!
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
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".
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.
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.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
"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?
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.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
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?
668: Neighbour of the Beast
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.
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" ?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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.
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."
Comment of the year
#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.
Let's examine a few of the problems:
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.
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.
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.
henry -- the human evolution news relay
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.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
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.
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?
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 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.
m
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.st
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.
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.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
More propaganda, liberal claptrap, fearmongering, and doom from the lefties. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz......
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
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.
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.
"by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
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.
Do You Experiment?
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.
Irks me when
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.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
Stupid sexy Flanders.