Top 25 Most Censored News Stories

[Zinkovich]

Project Censored Media Democracy in Action

Here's the Top 25:
#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

Anyways I'm posting this as a sort of test of it's claims that these stories have been "censored" by mainstream media- how many of these stories have you heard of in the mainstream press? I know the one about Cheney's stock rising by 3000 percent last year according to a senate report is one I never heard of that seems fairly legitimate(and downright scandalous), but then again I know that the one about the physicist who challenges the 9-11 story has been covered in detail by CNN at least.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Zinkovich Project Censored Media Democracy in Action Here's the Top 25: #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 Anyways I'm posting this as a sort of test of it's claims that these stories have been "censored" by mainstream media- how many of these stories have you heard of in the mainstream press? I know the one about Cheney's stock rising by 3000 percent last year according to a senate report is one I never heard of that seems fairly legitimate(and downright scandalous), but then again I know that the one about the physicist who challenges the 9-11 story has been covered in detail by CNN at least.

It sounds like a conspiracy website. Just because a person says the US government planned 9/11 doesn't mean its true. One can say anything that doesn't mean it legitimate.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: GHook93 It sounds like a conspiracy website. Just because a person says the US government planned 9/11 doesn't mean its true. One can say anything that doesn't mean it legitimate.

Most of it's articles are sourced by legitimate news networks(albeit ones that are not as widely read as, for example, the new york times). Also, it is mentioning the 9/11 physicist not as proof that 9/11 was a conspiracy, but an example of a story that news networks decided not to pick up according to their criteria. If you read their article, it is merely stating what the physicist says in his report rather than giviing a straight out opinion on the truth or falsity of such claims.

My bet is the reason they didn't pick up the story is entirely due to the reaction you are having right now- an assumption many make when reading news sources is that the newspaper or newscaster most often supports the claims of the stances it reports on concerning an issue, rather than thinking that hte newspaper is merely passing the claims on to you for your own objective consideration and perusal.

If you want, I'll look further into some of these stories for the purpose of accuracy, but could you at least answer my polling question, as that was my original reason for posting this?

Also, it was recommended by Walter Cronkite on national television on an old, old newscast(which is how I found it), if that counts for anything.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Zinkovich Most of it's articles are sourced by legitimate news networks (albeit ones that are not as widely read as, for example, the new york times). Also, it is mentioning the 9/11 physicist not as proof that 9/11 was a conspiracy, but an example of a story that news networks decided not to pick up according to their criteria.

At least Volconvo doesn't have so many "liberal bias" media debates.
Anyway, a lot of stories that have appeared in Project Censored are not necessarily out of tune with mainstream, popular thinking, but simply buried. The 9/11 one is probably one of the clearest exceptions. But the point stands: Such claims about 9/11 ought to be seriously investigated.
I am personally skeptical of 9/11 skeptics claims, but most media hasn't stood up to challenge them.

Grandpa h.

[Jack]

I suspect a problem with reporters and these stories is that the average reporter doesn't understand the elements involved. Few reporters seem to have a firm grasp on the concepts of the internet, high finance, foreign policy. Most networks seem to have two specialized reporters; one does the weather and the other the sports. Seldom do I see good reporting being done on topics that require specialized knowledge or a deep comprehension of the topic.
In other words, I think news departments avoid those stories out of fear of appearing stupid or because they don't even understand the significance of the news.

[GHook93]

My 9/11 reaction wasn't directed toward the physics it was more toward conspiracy website

Quote by: Zinkovich Most of it's articles are sourced by legitimate news networks(albeit ones that are not as widely read as, for example, the new york times). Also, it is mentioning the 9/11 physicist not as proof that 9/11 was a conspiracy, but an example of a story that news networks decided not to pick up according to their criteria. If you read their article, it is merely stating what the physicist says in his report rather than giviing a straight out opinion on the truth or falsity of such claims. My bet is the reason they didn't pick up the story is entirely due to the reaction you are having right now- an assumption many make when reading news sources is that the newspaper or newscaster most often supports the claims of the stances it reports on concerning an issue, rather than thinking that hte newspaper is merely passing the claims on to you for your own objective consideration and perusal. If you want, I'll look further into some of these stories for the purpose of accuracy, but could you at least answer my polling question, as that was my original reason for posting this? Also, it was recommended by Walter Cronkite on national television on an old, old newscast(which is how I found it), if that counts for anything.

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: GHook93 My 9/11 reaction wasn't directed toward the physics it was more toward conspiracy website

And...why do you think this is a conspiracy site, again? It cites new stories from legitimate articles, has no mention of new world orders or reptilians/fake moon landings/"fringe ideas", and also cites its claims in a noncircular manner.

I already explained to you why their mention of the 9/11 physicist does not make it a conspiracy site, in the very post you quoted.

Can you debunk any of the facts they specifically support and cite? Do you disagree that there is a physicist who made a report detailing his issues with the 9/11 collapse, and that he made the claims mentioned in the article? That is, after all, the only thinks they are representing as "fact", not the idea that 9/11 was a conspiracy is true, but that some think it is and do have "credentials".

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Zinkovich And...why do you think this is a conspiracy site, again? ... Can you debunk any of the facts they specifically support and cite?

Well, the first story claims "Cable companies could filter your content at will" and yet, dispite having this power since broadband started 5yrs ago, they haven't done it. Because customers will jump ship to another company providing broadband. This also means they loose thier phone/internet/TV combo deals.

The counter argument "Net Neutrality" sounds good because it has the word neutral in it. But "Neutral" really means "inferior service" controlled by the government. So, the whole argument should be burried.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Isherwood I suspect a problem with reporters and these stories is that the average reporter doesn't understand the elements involved. Few reporters seem to have a firm grasp on the concepts of the internet, high finance, foreign policy. Most networks seem to have two specialized reporters; one does the weather and the other the sports. Seldom do I see good reporting being done on topics that require specialized knowledge or a deep comprehension of the topic. In other words, I think news departments avoid those stories out of fear of appearing stupid or because they don't even understand the significance of the news.

[ Stands to begin the applause. ]


[ claps ]


Preach on Brother Isherwood.