the top 25 censored media stories of 2003-2004

Poststructural Pub
1

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/index.html

Saw this referred to on Slashdot, found in interesting reading, thought I’d share it here.

Here’s the headlines:

#1: Wealth Inequality in 21st Century Threatens Economy and Democracy

#2: Ashcroft vs. the Human Rights Law that Hold Corporations Accountable

#3: Bush Administration Censors Science

#4: High Levels of Uranium Found in Troops and Civilians

#5: The Wholesale Giveaway of Our Natural Resources

#6: The Sale of Electoral Politics

#7: Conservative Organization Drives Judicial Appointments

#8: Cheney’s Energy Task Force and The Energy Policy

#9: Widow Brings RICO Case Against U.S. government for 9/11

#10: New Nuke Plants: Taxpayers Support, Industry Profits

#11: The Media Can Legally Lie

#12: The Destabilization of Haiti

#13: Schwarzenegger Met with Enron’s Ken Lay Years Before the California Recall

#14: New Bill Threatens Intellectual Freedom in Area Studies

#15: U.S. Develops Lethal New Viruses

#16: Law Enforcement Agencies Spy on Innocent Citizens

#17: U.S. Government Represses Labor Unions in Iraq in Quest for Business Privatization

#18: Media and Government Ignore Dwindling Oil Supplies

#19: Global Food Cartel Fast Becoming hte World’s Supermarket

#20: Extreme Weather Prompts New Warning from UN

#21: Forcing a World Market for GMOs

#22: Censoring Iraq

#23: Brazil Holds Back in FTAA Talks, But Provides Little Comfort for the Poor of South America

#24: Reinstating the Draft

#25: Wal-Mart Brings Inequality and Low Prices to the World

–James

2

Don’t know if it was censored or not, but I never saw any headlines on what a great guy Walden is, during the past year. :slight_smile:

3

A lot of that is male bovine feces in it’s purest form. A couple of examples:

#6: The Sale of Electoral Politics:

Not much censorship there, maybe deaf ears, though. The McCain/Feingold bill and it’s preceedants were a big mistake and are the causes for the current political situation. John Kerry now wants to ban books and bring lawsuits against free speech because of it. Wanna bet he voted for it (or was absent for the vote)?

That all started when they tried to take money out of political campaigns, which I consider a law against free speech. It would be much better to have an open list of who donated what to whom, IMHO. The ones that created the mess has now stepped into it and don’t know how to wipe off their shoes…

18 I have heard and read lot about, so I wonder how it is censored?

It is the enviro-wacos that won’t let the US do anything about developing our own resources and utilize the safest cleanest power source we have available today, nuclear reactors.

Maybe most people aren’t news junkies such as am and just watch TV for info.

4

Yes, it seems to be our best kept secret here at Chiff and Fipple. Wonder how much I could get if I leaked that one to the press? :wink:

5

Of course there were no headlines, Walden… it’s not news that you are a great guy! :slight_smile:

6

And they say there is no bias in the media! This is proof positive of it! Libertarians everywhere, unite! And of course, the obligatory Dylexics Untie!

7

Of course this IS the internet. One would do well to do continued research on any of the topics they find of particular interest to verify, as much as possible, the validity of the claims made.

8

Definately.

They have actually recently reported that it has been discovered that the sun is unusually active period and it is burning hotter just now.

That would have absolutely nothing to do with that “global warming” recently being ranted about, now, would it.?

Thatt has to be the burning of fossil fuels and nothing at all to do with the sun’s output…(if I believe an interview with an environmental “scientist” that I heard interviewed yesterday), no, nothing at all!

9

And nothing to do with the cyclical nature of our home planet either. Of course there has NEVER been a period of time then the Earth was nearly frozen either, has there. Wonder what they would have blamed THAT on???

I am not saying that our persense does not have an effect on things. It is just that so many fees and taxes are based on environmental issues that they claim there really is not much known. Oh well.

I read an article one time that said that one volcano blows a hole in the ozone layer larger than all the cfc’s ever released.

10

If these are the top “censored” stories (not saying they are VALID stories or not) how come I’ve read or hear something on almost every one of them? I’ve even had arguments with others on several of them (which I will spare y’all of reading about!).
Of course, I don’t “just” get my news in 10 second sound bytes off the TV. I read a lot of online newspapers, look at other sites, read books and journals, etc.

And you REALLY don’t want to get me started on “junk” science reporting!! :angry:

Missy

11

FYI – EPA has never been noted for boldness. It appears that the Bush Administration is convinced of the reality of global warming caused by human activity. http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html

So the question is not “Is it happening?” but “Does it matter?”

I don’t have kids, so I don’t have a direct personal stake. I think it is changing our world for the worse, so I’m willing to make a few modest lifestyle changes. My nieces’ and nephews’ grandchildren (and yours) will have much less uncertainty about global warming. Hopefully they’ll be calling me a foolish alarmist, and not calling the skeptics simply fools.

On a cheerier note, I’m convinced that all the hot air coming out of the far end of every whistle helps make the global environment a little healthier!

12

I find the kind of language used in this thread about people concerned about the environment to be highly offensive. It does nothing to bolster the credibility of those who think that nuclear power is the ultimate answer when they throw cheap insults like “enviro-wacos” at those who dare to disagree with them. Grow up and talk to adults like an adult if you want your opinions to be taken seriously by intelligent people.

13

You have the right to be offended, (which, no offense meant, BTW, tends to show to me that you bought into the junk science talk) I have the right to offend. I see nothing wrong with that unless one of us gets violent.

I talk to adults with adult speech, I talk to wackos with wacko talk. You are free to classify yourself as to what you are, I have the right to decide for myself as what you appear to be.

I have freedom of speech, you have freedom to listen (read) or not.

If they know real science, they have much more adulthood than if they talk junk science.

Peer review should be able to convince real scientists, but nobody listens to that in the popular media. Archeological evidence certainly points to much hotter times than these (study the dark age history).

The safety record of nuclear power vs other electrical generation methods (acid rain, anyone?) is well proven and there is no reason to abandon it.

I suggest moving out of the state you live in… :smiling_imp:

14

Hooray for that!! :thumbsup:

15

Bad logic and really bad manners. I’ve lived in NC and found folks there to be gracious and pleasant. We have folks who share your views here in Massachusetts. We don’t mind eccentrics - they’re fun and entertaining. I hope they don’t all move to NC.

I’m a big fan of good science. Borrowing from EPA again, the planet is getting warmer because of human activity. It’s a fact that has scientific concensus, but I’m sure you can find a scientist or two who isn’t convinced. The only legitimate debate is what the impact on the planet will be. If you’re serious about good science, you’ll acknowledge the reality of global warming adn debate its impact. If you can’t, I must assume you don’t care about science at all and adopt your beliefs based on some ideology and aren’t interested in fact. That’s fine too. Just try not to rant when good science disagrees with your ideology.

The way you present your arguments comes across as angry and defensive. If that’s what you intended, it’s working well for you.

BTW has the rain from Frances gotten to NC yet?

16

Obviously not a reader of “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” Many people do just as much homework as you, fancypiper. Perhaps they simply come to different conclusions. That doesn’t make them wackos. Just because they don’t agree with you doesn’t mean they aren’t intelligent, thoughtful, caring people. You may want to withhold or reconsider your judgment.

Susan

17

Do you need a hug?

18

Apparently this means that if someone agrees with you they are adults; if not, they are “wackos.” This is akin to Schwarzenegger calling his opponents “girlie-men” and smirking, thinking that he has been witty. Again, this is no basis for useful dialogue about some of the most pressing issues–no matter what your point of view–facing us. And, yes, you have the right to be rude–so do loud people in restaurants; however, calling environmentalists “tree-huggers” or “wackos” will not prove your point to be correct; it merely brings your own judgement into serious question and detracts from any credibility you might have had.

19

I know that one,

That volcano theory was mentioned by Rush Limbaugh in his 1st book, and then mentioned frequently in the press. He got it from Dixie Lee Ray, who apparently got it from a Lyndon Larouche newsletter.

It’s a wonderful example of a perfectly rational common-sense argument that is elegant and intuitive and 100% wrong. It seems perfectly natural that a giant volcanic eruption will do more damage than humans—they (volcanoes) certainly erupt amazingly huge volumes of gas.

But, the problem is that a volcano’s ozone-depleting chemicals never get up to the ozone layer. It doesn’t matter how much gas it burps out, it never gets up there to do damage. Ironically, the whiffs of CFCs wafting from spray cans do get up to the ozone layer.

How is this possible? Because CFCs are man-made chemicals engineered to be inert. They find their way up to the ozone layer because nothing breaks them down before that point. In contrast, chlorine burped from a volcano is soluble, and is captured by moisture that returns the stuff to Earth as rain.

The moral: be skeptical when you hear these common-sense, qualitative arguments. Science is not qualitative, it is quantitative. Does sunspot activity really explain higher temperatures? It sounds plausible, but the only thing that really matters is hard data.

Caj

20

That’s the problem with highly politicized areas of science: you can never have enough consensus, or enough papers, or enough data. Someone will always dispute a finding that is bad for biz, and in the name of fairness those naysayers will get an equal voice in the court of public opinion.

To the public, it sounds like there is no consensus, because they hear this equally impenetrable babble on both sides. But one side is a genuine scientific consensus, the other a contrary point of view that is tiny but well-organized.

And then people accuse the scientific community itself of corruption, towing a P.C. establishment line for the sake of their careers. Of course, these people couldn’t accuse scientists of being wrong without their computers, electrified homes, and their long lifespans and leisure time that let them complain so much.

Caj