Every year group called Project Censored publishes a list of “stories about significant issues of which the public should be aware, but is not, for one reason or another.”
This year the top 5 stories are:
#1: The Neoconservative Plan for Global Dominance #2: Homeland Security Threatens Civil Liberty #3: US Illegally Removes Pages from Iraq U.N. Report #4: Rumsfeld’s Plan to Provoke Terrorists #5: The Effort to Make Unions Disappear
They weren’t run on any major American news channels. This probably means that the networks thought the stories weren’t profitable (who wants to listen to the Neoconservative plan for global dominance when you can listen to such important matters as Jennifer Lopez’s wedding?). Most of them were featured in the UK press (I remember reading about the plan for global dominance in the UK papers) and on alternative media sites (like indymedia) based in the US (this is taken from a debate on another message board, where this topic came up, so I have no cite as to show how many American networks actually ran the stories).
“Censored” is probably used for effect, but I suppose you could argue that they were censored in a way.
Did you notice that one of the “sources” they cite for the depleted uranium story is Hustler magazine? Not exactly the first rank among peer-reviewed scientific sources.
Most of the rest of the site to which you linked is like that - an almost grotesque overstatement of some things the far Left would would prefer that we simply take as gospel.
The stories are not really censored - they just are not treated as prominently as they would be if people believed them.
Were they were suppressed in the ‘corporate media’ because a newspaper is owned by a commercial company and the story might affect the profitability of that company?
Or does that sort of thing not happen in real life?
I agree that the word ‘censored’ has a meaning of the government forcing the media not to print these stories, which doesn’t seem to have happened.
But were these legitimate stories suppressed by other forces?
Perhaps looking at the top censored stories of 2001-2002, 2000, and 1999 should be looked at to determine if there is a “liberal” bias.
It also might help to read the background of Project Censored as well. Considering the web site has strong ties to Sonoma State University (One of those liberal bastions of education in California nonetheless!) should offer insight.
1: No, they were not censored, except in the eyes of paranoids who seriously need medication.
2: As I said above.
3: For the most part, the gist of these particular stories seem to be accurate, and no surprise to anybody who has at least three functional cerebral neurons.
It’s kind of like people being surprised at what happened in autumn of 1939.
No, they weren’t “censored” by the government, and they weren’t “ignored” by the corporate media. They just weren’t given as much prominence as the lefties think they should have had.
And they were all published in newspapers or magazines. I’ve never unstood how they could cry “Censorship!” about something that was, you know, available to the reading public of the country…
That depends upon whether or not one is a nutcase loonybin paranoid leftist or not, I would say. What I’ve found is that “censor” in the USA means “disagree with the prejudices of a few elitist, narrow-minded, leftist, self-appointed ‘experts’” more often than not.
Censorship in this country has subtly changed over the years to be more covert. It’s fairly impossible to completely censor a story from the news - with all the various media outlets, newspapers, online news, foreign press, etc. Instead, the editors of major media engage in some self-censorship. A major media conglomerate (whom controls the majority of news Americans get) wouldn’t want to piss off the current administration. You might be labeled un-patriotic or aiding terrorism. But, unfortunately, some of these stories are just too hard to completely bury, so they do need some press. Slant the story away from a ‘controversial’ viewpoint, never ask any hard questions, regurgitate the government line, and never do any follow up. People forget, or never really care in the first place. The ‘liberal media’ is as much of an urban myth as the giant mexican rat story.
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications, whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.
RICHARD M. COHAN, Senior Producer of CBS political news said: “We are going to impose OUR AGENDA on the coverage by dealing with issues and subjects that WE choose to deal with.”
RICHARD SALANT, former President of CBS News stated: “Our job is to give people not what they want, but what WE decide they ought to have.”
Well? The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries. (A genuine world republic would be better still, but you can’t have everything. Yet.) If the Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergers, etc., were really ruling the world, at least they wouln’t allow their vassal states to make war on each other. Bad for business, except for the arms business. However, as wars and chaos still go on, I find it hard to believe the would-be world rulers, if any, have advanced very far toward their goal.
Dan Rather, the star news anchor for the US television network CBS, said last night that “patriotism run amok” was in danger of trampling the freedom of American journalists to ask tough questions. And he admitted that he had shrunk from taking on the Bush administration over the war on terrorism.
More than “Project Censored” it’s “Project Not Made a Big Deal of by Corporate Media”. Some of the stuff does make it to Big Media but gets buried in page C-45 and that’s it.
That said, it should be legitimate to use “censor” in a colloquial sense of “shitcanned by someone with the power to shitcan it”, as long as the context avoids confusing it with the “strict constructionist” meaning. Then you can counterargue that the story did not actually get supressed so it was nto even censored in that sense. Otherwise I could not say I’m “self-cesoring” if I write “Shaft is one mean motorscooter”.
I am a liberal, by USA political standards, and even I think some of the stories (and the editorial judgement involved in not giving them prominence) are of the “well, duh” type (The Pharmaceutical Industry is putting profits first… we were cozy with terrorist scum before 9/11… that’s news to anyone???).
However I’ve always laughed at the idea that the Big Corporate Media in the USA are agents of a “leftist agenda”. They’re agents of their bottom line, relying on what will keep their target audience segment happy.
The mainstream media WILL keep an eye and ear out in case one of these stories grows “legs”, or an alternapress outlet breaks out something too good to miss. May be a year later and heavily spun, but something’s something…