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'."
Is it censorship if the mass media ignores it, or does it show that their viewing public don't care?
God, I would like to file a bug report...
#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
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.
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.
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
Did the year end already? Man, I gotta quit drinkin' because I thought it was May.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
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)
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
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".
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.
Letter To Iran
What I lose on the anti-global warming posts, I make up on Simpons-based cracks.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
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.
"When nobody else is worried about your obsessions."
668: Neighbour of the Beast
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."
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.
#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.
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.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
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?
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