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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

I can't believe #1 is...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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...

[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...

[taoman1]

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

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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

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.

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]

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.

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."

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: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.

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

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?

[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.

Of 2007?

[FlyingSquidStudios]

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

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?

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."

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

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

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

[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: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.

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.

I say "Screw it"

[PHAEDRU5]

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

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.

Censorhip, new definition

[PHAEDRU5]

"When nobody else is worried about your obsessions."

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?

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."

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

[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.

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" ?

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.

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: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: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?

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 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.

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: 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

Re:summary of most of them

[F34nor]

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

Re:I Hate that FAT DISGUSTING FUCK dick cheyney..

[Anonymous Coward]

He shot a lawyer - does that count?

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: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.