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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

Botch's definition of censorship

[Harmonious Botch]

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

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

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

Re:The list

[Blakey Rat]

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

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

Re: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?