Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Top 25 Censored Media Stories of 2003-2004

CmdrTaco posted about 10 years ago | from the trust-no-one dept.

Censorship 921

An anonymous reader writes "Project Censored has come out with its list of the most censored media stores of 2003-2004. Some of the gems are "Bush Administration Censors Science", "U.S. Develops Lethal New Viruses", "Media and Government Ignore Dwindling Oil Supplies" and "Reinstating the Draft"."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Strangely Appropriate... (5, Funny)

Mateito (746185) | about 10 years ago | (#10171350)

Top 25 Censored Media Stories of 2003-2004

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

Re:Strangely Appropriate... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171587)

You know, the bit about the Draft I hadn't heard before, as well as most of those things. And, I like to think I keep on top of current events. They make for great discussions / debates with my friends.

Now, the part about how the Media can legally lie didn't surprise me! Everytime I see FOX News it not only pisses me off, as they are clearly stating OPINION and not FACT, it also makes me ashamed of the fact that I am an American in this day and age... a Native American at that.

And, if Bush is elected in 200X, I am moving to Iceland, damn it! Just like that Mac Switch Spoof Flash Film! MOVE TO ICELAND!

Anonymous Coward

Tin hat wearers rejoice! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171358)

Here's your recommended reading list!

Sheeple conformists, rejoice! (0, Offtopic)

Cryofan (194126) | about 10 years ago | (#10171532)

"Here is the new object of next week's Five Minute Hate!"

Well, anyway, one thing that this presidential campaign has shown me is that one of the fundamental difference between Bush supporters and those who oppose him is conformity. With regard to those who accuse others of tinfoilhattism, are they pragmatic spotters of nonsensical troublemakers, or are they conformist sheeple, willing to goosestep for whatever cause the hierarchy tells them to?

I would say that history shows us all we need to answer that question.....

Top Censored Comment of Year (4, Funny)

Metallic Matty (579124) | about 10 years ago | (#10171359)

Go **** ******* you *******.

This content added to avoid "lameness."

Re:Top Censored Comment of Year (5, Funny)

jpnews (647965) | about 10 years ago | (#10171386)

This content added to avoid "lameness."

Nice try.

In china.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171362)

Sounds like this [] will be the most censored content.

Seems with such the over 50% M/F [] gender ratio, they'd _want_ such content to be available instead of having a bunch of frustrated guys running around causing trouble.

I can't believe #1 is (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171366)

******* *** *******! That's just shocking! Really, really shocking!

This site does appear to be a bit to the left, though. So take what they chose with a grain of salt, or a few tablespoons.

Stupid junk filter ruins my joke. So I have to keep typing more and more stuff. It's really rather annoying. I mean, really really annoying. How much more do I need to type? I keep going and going and going yet it keeps telling me to use fewer junk characters.

Re:I can't believe #1 is (1)

I confirm I'm not a (720413) | about 10 years ago | (#10171391)

This site does appear to be a bit to the left, though.

Agreed, but... there's probably a limit to how much blue-pencilling the left can do right now. It'd be interesting (once their server recovers...) to see what their slant was during the Clinton years.

Re:I can't believe #1 is (4, Interesting)

tsm_sf (545316) | about 10 years ago | (#10171496)

The SF Bay Guardian runs this list [] every year, and it's consistently left leaning. However, there are always a few stories on the list that are centrist, irrefutable and frightening. Like these two from the current list:

4) High uranium levels found in troops and civilians
10) New nuke plants: taxpayers support, industry profits

Re:I can't believe #1 is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171432)

"Stupid junk filter ruins my joke. So I have to keep typing more and more stuff. "

So look at the guy who posted the same joke right before yours; and note how he made the same joke with the same censorship-character with way less filler than yours. Perhaps /code just noticed you were being redundant.

Re:I can't believe #1 is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171457)

No, he used less * characters and replaced them with words. Same joke, slightly different approach. Originally the joke was a * for letter match to the actual #1.

still censored.. (4, Funny)

rehabdoll (221029) | about 10 years ago | (#10171369)

And thanks to slashdot, they are still censored.

someone's thought of this... (1)

AbraCadaver (312271) | about 10 years ago | (#10171464)

An interesting idea, actually - how to you make sure that a URL published (or one that is going to be published) on FOX, CNN, or MSNBC is denied to the general TV public who might actually check it out? Submit it as a story to a site such as Slashdot, with some urgent, immediate, or "impending doom" headline... Not that this particular story had any immediacy, or that the effect would last very long, but it's an interesting tactic nonetheless...

Interesting... (3, Interesting)

cerberus4696 (765520) | about 10 years ago | (#10171371) all of these 'censored' stories reflect a left-leaning viewpoint.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171390)

Perhaps because those currently in power doing the censoring have a right-leaning viewpoint?

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171406)

A right-falling-off-the-chair viewpoint, really.

Re:Interesting... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171405) all of these 'censored' stories reflect a left-leaning viewpoint.

Of course they do.
Why would a right-wing administration wish to censor stories with right-leaning viewpoints?

Re:Interesting... (5, Insightful)

I confirm I'm not a (720413) | about 10 years ago | (#10171421) all of these 'censored' stories reflect a left-leaning viewpoint.

It's not that interesting. Power right now rests with the right; stories with a right-wing slant are promoted, left-leaning stories demoted or censored. The time to complain about a left-wing slant in when power rests with the left.

Re:Interesting... (1, Informative)

jlgolson (19847) | about 10 years ago | (#10171498)

Your viewpoint has been determined to have a left-leaning slant. You have been marked for censorship.

But seriously, how naive are you? Who controls the media in this country?

Liberal journalists SERIOUSLY outnumber conservative ones.

Maybe political power rests with the "right" but the last time I checked the balance of power in the Senate and House was pretty evenly matched. Take off your tin-foil hat.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171524)

I think you have to realize that in the grand scope of things, your idea of "liberal" leaning is actually quite right-wing.

Hard-core lefties are hardly liberals. They usually call themselves "progressives" and they want to "progress" by top-down social control. They are the true lefties.

If you think Democrats are left-wing, you are in for a shock if you visit an university campus. :)

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171531)

Ah, yes, like Diane Sawyer, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchanan, John McLauglin, flaming liberals like that.

Re:Interesting... (4, Insightful)

captnitro (160231) | about 10 years ago | (#10171555)

Yes, in all forms of media, in all places.

Which is why where I live in Southwestern Virginia, the 700 Club dominates my television programming, and I can't find anything on the radio that isn't conservative talk shows or Gospel.

Not everyone lives in New York.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171500)

Its not just power, its the fact that most well respected media sources do have a right-leaning view point. By right leaning I mean democratic - capatalist (this covers BOTH republicans and democrats).

Quite honestly, left-leaning media has quite a lot less credibility, and thats why it doesn't get "covered". The one's that exist arnt censored by any meaningful definition of the word. It's just that people don't pay attention to them.

Calling people not taking you seriously censorship is a real warped use of the word.

Re:Interesting... (1, Insightful)

js7a (579872) | about 10 years ago | (#10171438)

I think that is unsuprising given that most media outlets are owned and controled by rich conservatives and corporations.

Re:Interesting... (1)

FatRatBastard (7583) | about 10 years ago | (#10171440)

Is it "censored" if it never happened (i.e. the draft)

Not to mention the reason that coverage of the whole "oil crisis" may be low since everyone, and I mean EVERYONE (including the oil industry) have been crying wolf for the last 80 or so years about the end of oil.

Funny how there wasn't much coverage about the Saudis (who are notoriously conservative when it comes to reserves estimates) have revised their exploitable reserves upward by quite a bit.

I'm still waiting for the "population bomb" to hit... and the impending ice-age we've brought upon ourselves.

Re:Interesting... (1)

karniv0re (746499) | about 10 years ago | (#10171455)

I imagine there's plenty of right-leaning stories that have been censored as well. Maybe you could start a site that deals specifically with those? Censorship is bad in any form. I may not agree with what you say, but by damnit, I'm glad you have the right to say it. At least this site is getting some of these things out there.

How about... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171462)

it reflects an intellectual viewpoint?

Yeah. Republicans don't like thinking about things. They'd much prefer their Great Leaders to do all their thinking for them.

God, why is it that we have come to a time when being an intellectual automatically makes you a "left-leaning wacko."

Don't you think that people who think about things are important?

Re:Interesting... (4, Insightful)

caluml (551744) | about 10 years ago | (#10171511)

Because most of the main US media outlets are, at least from what I see in the UK, terribly right wing?

Re:Interesting... (0, Troll)

jlgolson (19847) | about 10 years ago | (#10171549)

And you would be terribly wrong.

OK, maybe they're right wing compared to what you have over there, but to anyone who has studied media and politics, the only media remotely "right-wing" which is to say centrist, is Fox News/NY Daily News/Boston Herald.

See my previous post. It really depends on what you mean by right wing, we're not talking Moussolini here.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171540)

I thought many were from a libertarian voiewpoint (taxpayer suport for nukes, government involvement w/ business lik enron, law enforcement spying on citizens, draft).

I think it's a bipartisen bashing of the neocons.

Getting a little slow, (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171372)

Google cache [] link

Re:Getting a little slow, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171452)

Thanks a whole hell of a lot, fuckwad. I had managed to avoid the guy, until just right fucking now. Jesus Christ.


Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171465)

My eyes are burining oh gosh.

Re:Getting a little slow, (0, Troll)

PhoenixFlare (319467) | about 10 years ago | (#10171471)

If you value your eyes, do not follow that link, leads to page with a pic of the man.

Here's the list (5, Informative)

wolenczak (517857) | about 10 years ago | (#10171373)

#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

Re:Here's the list (0, Troll)

QuantumPion (805098) | about 10 years ago | (#10171395)

These stories aren't really censored, they are being ignored, because they are blatantly false leftist propoganda. How this qualifies as a slashdot story is beyond me...

Re:Here's the list (0, Flamebait)

Angry Toad (314562) | about 10 years ago | (#10171442)

They are? That's very interesting. Do you have any way of supporting that contention other than just saying it is so?

No? Thought not.

Re:Here's the list (0, Troll)

QuantumPion (805098) | about 10 years ago | (#10171494)

Well, I would think that the majority of the media, being strongly left-leaning and biased, would report these stories that could potentially hurt the Bush Administration at every opportunity. The fact that they do not implies that the leftist media know that these stories are not true, and that moderate America would be turned off by the reporting of such stories. Do you have any response to that? No? Thought not.

Re:Here's the list (1)

NeMon'ess (160583) | about 10 years ago | (#10171477)

So you deny the following:

The rapid shift of wealth threatens economies?
Politics are for sale?
Taxpayers subsidise nuclear power?
USA developed new lethal viruses?
Wal-Mart brings inequality and low prices to the world?

These are facts. You can say the stories are being spun to the left, but they are not false.

they are true, and I've checked out #4 carefully (5, Insightful)

js7a (579872) | about 10 years ago | (#10171503)

These stories aren't really censored, they are being ignored, because they are blatantly false....

On the contrary, take #4 for example, High Levels of Uranium Found in Troops and Civilians [] , which is ssupported by several publications in the peer-reviewed medical literature. []

Why would anyone be so quick to call it propoganda? 10,000 Gulf War vets have already died of diseases with symptoms identical to uranium dust inhalation. Why deny it?

Here are the pertinent excerpts, if you don't believe them then tell me exactly what you don't believe:

UMRC's Field Team found several hundred Afghan civilians with acute symptoms of radiation poisoning along with chronic symptoms of internal uranium contamination, including congenital problems in newborns. Local civilians reported large, dense dust clouds and smoke plumes rising from the point of impact, an acrid smell, followed by burning of the nasal passages, throat and upper respiratory tract. Subjects in all locations presented identical symptom profiles and chronologies. The victims reported symptoms including pain in the cervical column, upper shoulders and basal area of the skull, lower back/kidney pain, joint and muscle weakness, sleeping difficulties, headaches, memory problems and disorientation.

At the Uranium Weapons Conference held October 2003 in Hamburg, Germany, independent scientists from around the world testified to a huge increase in birth deformities and cancers wherever NDU and DU had been used. Professor Katsuma Yagasaki, a scientist at the Ryukyus University, Okinawa calculated that the 800 tons of DU used in Afghanistan is the radioactive equivalent of 83,000 Nagasaki bombs. The amount of DU used in Iraq is equivalent to 250,000 Nagasaki bombs....

Sgt. Hector Vega, Sgt. Ray Ramos, Sgt. Agustin Matos and Cpl. Anthony Yonnone from New York's 442nd Guard Unit ... are the first confirmed cases of inhaled uranium oxide exposure from the current Iraq conflict. Dr. Asaf Durokovic, professor of Nuclear Medicine at the Uranium Medical Research Centre conducted the diagnostic tests. The story was released April 3, 2004 in the New York Daily News. There is no treatment and there is no cure. 685c.html

Leuren Moret reports, "In my research on depleted uranium during the past 5 years, the most disturbing information concerns the impact on the unborn children and future generations for both soldiers serving in the depleted uranium wars, and for the civilians who must live in the permanently radioactive contaminated regions. Today, more than 240,000 Gulf War veterans are on permanent medical disability and more than 11,000 are dead. They have been denied testing, medical care, and compensation for depleted uranium exposure and related illnesses since 1991."

Moret continues "Even worse, they brought it home in their bodies. In some families, the children born before the Gulf War are the only healthy members. Wives and female partners of Gulf War veterans have reported a condition known as burning semen syndrome, and are now internally contaminated from depleted uranium carried in the semen of exposed veterans. Many are reporting reproductive illnesses such as endometriosis. In a U.S. government study, conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs on post-Gulf War babies, 67% were found to have serious birth defects or serious illnesses. They were born without eyes (anophthalmos), ears, had missing organs, missing legs and arms, fused fingers, thyroid or other organ malformations...."

UMRC found artificial uranium in bomb craters, surrounding watercourses and the bodies of civilians exposed to US Coalition bombing in Afghanistan. Civilians surveyed presented with the classical symptoms of internal contamination by uranium, which began after exposure to the bombing. The presence of artificial uranium in environmental and biological samples indicates that the bunker buster warheads used in Afghanistan are made of uranium.

Uranium is a chemically and radiologically toxic element, clinically proven to be a cause of various types of cancer and congenital malformations (birth defects). Internal contamination of uranium is responsible for variety of systemic and organ system problems, which has never been considered or studied by the Defense Department or Veterans health programs as possible cause of Gulf War Illness. The symptoms of internal contamination by uranium in Iraq and Afghanistan civilians are identical to the symptoms of US and Coalition veterans complaining of Gulf War Illness.

The Pentagon/DoD have interfered with UMRC's ability to have its studies published by managing a ... persistent misinformation program in the press against UMRC, and through the use of its control of science research grants to refute UMRC's scientific findings and destroy the reputation of UMRC's scientific staff, physicians and laboratories. UMRC is the first independent research organization to find Depleted Uranium in the bodies of US, UK and Canadian Gulf War I veterans and has subsequently, following Operation Iraqi Freedom, found Depleted Uranium in the water, soils and atmosphere of Iraq as well as biological samples donated by Iraqi civilians.

The United States and several of its Coalition partners and NATO allies have been deploying in battlefield and experimenting with chemically toxic and radioactive heavy metals in various types of bullets, bombs and warheads since the early 1970s. Uranium powder is taken from the nuclear fuel reprocessing cycle, after it has been mixed with nuclear reactor waste products and spent fuel, to supply the non-fissile weapons' manufacturing industry.

Uranium is preferred over all other "ballistic" metals (e.g. lead, iron, tungsten) because it offers a set of unique metallurgical properties: it is extremely dense yet ductile metal (not brittle); it is pyrophoric (uranium dust burns spontaneously at room temperature); and, solid metal uranium is autoigniting at 170 F. Uranium metal has a very unusual property not available in any other metal; it is "self-sharpening", meaning that when it hits a target at high velocities (1 km/sec) it erodes and breaks in such a way as to continuously re-sharpen its point -- the leading points of all other warhead metals flatten or mushroom under these conditions. These properties give uranium a superior performance as a penetrating warhead alloy capable of breaching the hardest and thickest armor plating, retaining penetration capabilities at 15 % greater distances and lower speeds than the most common alternative metal, tungsten. Burning uranium is hard to extinguish, and if doused with water, it will explode. Uranium used in specially designed high velocity liquid metal penetrators can bore through 20 feet of super-reinforced concrete bunkers in classified weapons called "shaped charges" and "explosively formed penetrators". The hard (dense), resilient (ductile) and heavy (sustaining momentum) characteristics of uranium also make it optimal in the warhead of robust earth-penetrating bombs to carry them into buried targets and caves.

The mainstream press in the US and Canada does not show any general interest in the story, let alone an investigative interest. European mainstream press is more interested and follows key developments. The NY Daily News April 5, 2004 has covered Gulf War II results by UMRC's studies of US veterans. DoD has lied and misled the public and the veterans in an attempt to undermine the significance of the story. There is significant alternative press and internet press coverage. The technique for coverage is to approach the story as a debate between government and independent experts in which public interest is stimulated by polarizing the issues rather than telling the scientific and medical truth. The issues are systematically confused and misinformed by government, UN regulatory agencies (WHO, UNEP, IAEA, CDC, DOE, etc) and defense sector (military and the weapons developers and manufacturers).

Re:Here's the list (2, Insightful)

captnitro (160231) | about 10 years ago | (#10171508)

I agree.. not Slashdot.

But 'blatantly false leftist propaganda' is a harsh term for stories that just didn't get covered. Who are you, editor-in-chief of the New York Times? How many doctorates in do you hold to be generalizing 25 stories as 'blatantly false leftist propaganda'?

Yeah, a lot of these are less journalistic professionalism than op-ed pieces, but does it seem odd to anybody that instead of hearing arguments any more, it's just "group-you-disagree-with propaganda"? God forbid we should have a great discussion about things we disagree about, because who needs progress!

Re:Here's the list (4, Insightful)

FFFish (7567) | about 10 years ago | (#10171453)

Top 25 US Stories not reported by the US media. Some other nations media may well have covered this stuff.

Speaking of Peak Oil... (1)

Judeccan (638549) | about 10 years ago | (#10171374)

Are we doomed?

Be Cautious of Sources (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171375)

I'm an avid progressive, and I identify with many of the issues presented in this list ... but all of these articles should be taken with a grain of salt.
Many of the articles come from seriously left-leaning rags. BuzzFlash [] , for example, is hyperliberal, and the editorials are often kind of tin-foil hat., "Organic Consumer" ... these are all good sources of information, but you've got to keep a close eye on what you're reading, and sift through the editorializing to get to the facts.

Just my 3.14...

-- m.Operandi

Re:Be Cautious of Sources (1)

madHomer (2207) | about 10 years ago | (#10171460)

Not only bad sources, but they cannot even proofread

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

The real story, obviously... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171495) that the US media are the most censored on Earth. Look at the list of censored stories here. Compare to the list from allegedly "despotic" mainland China. What? You say you can't compare them, because there isn't a list from China? Well, isn't that interesting: 25 stories censored by our "free" (capitalist) media, and that's just the tip of the iceberg -- and not a single story censored by the media of the PRC. You hear occasional wild claims from Western media, but don't you think that if the Chinese media were censored, they'd report on it? Of course they would. But they don't. Because it's not happening.

This story, of course, has been censored in the West.

Re:The real story, obviously... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171556)

Please please please please, I hope the parent is being sarcastic.

It's kinda sad that I would even doubt it, but such is the times.

Reinstating the Draft (0, Flamebait)

superpulpsicle (533373) | about 10 years ago | (#10171377)

Heh, god knows how many Bush wannabes say the Bill was dead. The National Act was pretty damn close to reinstating it IMHO. Someone will scream out "No it wasn't". The saddest part is Kerry will do no different. All a part of conspiracy 101... population control. Whoo wheee.

Re:Reinstating the Draft (2, Insightful)

Siergen (607001) | about 10 years ago | (#10171514)

The only U.S. politicians that I've seen advocating reinstating the draft are Democrats, who then turn around and claim that Bush must be defeated to avoid to the draft. The mainstream media usually ignores the bills the Dems sponsor to reinstate the draft, but gives front-page coverage to their claims that Bush wants the draft. Is that double-standard in coverage what you mean by "censorship"?

Censored Non-Stories? (4, Insightful)

Viscount9 (612677) | about 10 years ago | (#10171379)

Oh my god lobbying groups - conservative ones! - are influcing judicial appointments!

Holy shit Batman!

I am sure during the Clinton years it would be: Baby Killer Lobbying Groups Influence Judicial Appointments!

Well, probably not, since these lists are pretty left in their bias.

Everyone once in awhile, the list does have very interesting info. But this is just like reading something from

Anyone who follows the news beyond CNN, would know this and wouldnt be too alarmed by these "censored" stories.

Hmm (5, Interesting)

Erwos (553607) | about 10 years ago | (#10171381)

The problem I have is more that "censored" implies that the government went through with a pair of scissors and yanked out the offending stories. Not being widely covered is not really the same thing as being censored.

Also, the site seems to be heavily Democratic in orientation. This could be a result of the more left-leaning college students who compile it, I suppose. But I wouldn't take the whole thing as a simple, unbiased academic exercise. Their commentary on the draft, for instance, reeks of a rather lop-sided view of the issue.


"Not being widely covered" == censorship (1, Insightful)

Cryofan (194126) | about 10 years ago | (#10171428)

You wrote:
"Not being widely covered is not really the same thing as being censored."

I disagree. It is a FORM of censorship. And certainly it tells us what many CorpGovMedia figures do not want us to know. And so this is important....

Re:"Not being widely covered" == censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171439)

The media didn't cover my dog's death! Oh no, that's censorship.

Re:"Not being widely covered" == censorship (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171480)

It's only censorship if someone actively prevented it from being covered.

It's not censorship if someone didn't cover it because it was a stupid story or contained unverifiable claims.

People tend to equate censorship with 'not hearing every crackpot story' and 'not being able to say anything I want and have everyone in the world forced to listen.'

David Duke censored by anti-white liberals. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171563)

Can it really be a coincidence that David Duke's views are not well represented in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times?

That just goes to show who controls the media, and what sort of ideas they've defined as "crimethink" and banned from public discourse.

Hint, for the comprehension-impaired: Any lunatic-fringe nut-job can claim "censorship" when his ideas aren't taken seriously by the mainstream, but that doesn't make it so. Duke's ideas are absent from on the WSJ's editorial page not because the WSJ is Conspiring to Hide the Truth, but because Duke's ideas are self-evidently moronic. The jackass in the parent post is in the same position as Duke.

Interesting article on the draft issue (4, Interesting)

usurper_ii (306966) | about 10 years ago | (#10171388)

While I don't think it is going to happen, I thought this was a really interesting article on the draft issue...and it came out of the Family Circle of all places. If my wife hadn't had it laying around, I would have probably never even heard about this. -- Usurper_ii

Could your child be drafted?
by Jan Goodwin

High-school seniors have a lot on their minds these days--applying to
college, getting accepted, finding the funds to pay for it, then worrying
about whether they can get a job once they graduate. One thing they hadn't
counted on, however, was being drafted into the military when they turn 18.

There hasn't been a draft in the United States since 1973, but indications
are strong that next year that may change. And for the first time, young
women as well as men can expect to be called.

Why a return to the draft? Because our troops (stationed in two-thirds of
the world's countries) are spread so thinly, and because high casualty rates
in Iraq and Afghanistan have dramatically reduced recruitment and
reenlist-ment levels. A poll taken last year by Stars and Stripes, a
Pentagon-funded newspaper for service personnel, found that 49 percent of
respondents were not planning to reenlist.

According to retired U.S. Army Colonel David Hackworth, a military analyst
and one of the most decorated officers in the army, the U.S. military is now
so shorthanded that a whopping 40 percent of the 135,000 troops being
rotated into Iraq are National Guard members and reservists. Adds
Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY); '"We haven't called up this level of
reservists since the Korean War."

What's more, if House and Senate bills HR163 and S89 pass, the loophole 'of
college, used by many to avoid serving in Vietnam, will be closed next time
around. All men and women ages 18 to 26 would be eligible for induction once
they have completed high school. Further, the Smart Border Declaration,
signed by Canadian and U.S. officials in December 2001, should keep would-be
draft dodgers in this country.

Congressman Rangel, author of the House bill, which is now before the Armed
Services Committee (Ernest Hollings [D-SC] authored the Senate version),
explains that the Administration's commitment to a prolonged presence in the
Middle East, the prospect of additional military interventions, and the fact
that "half of Guards and reservists say they have no intention to stay in"
are strong indicators that "ultimately we will run out of bodies."

"We shouldn't need a draft," says Rangel, "but now that we've been involved
in a war, the patriotic thing is shared sacrifice. Currently, the rich get a
tax cut, and the poor get a chance to make the ultimate sacrifice."

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), addressing the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee in April, concurred. "Why shouldn't we ask all our citizens to
bear some responsibility and pay some price?'" he said.

Feeling a Draft?

The Administration denies that a draft is in the works. Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld has stated: "We're not going to reimplement a draft. There
is no need for it. The disadvantages of using compulsion to bring into the
armed forces the men and women needed are notable."

But, says Ron Paul, M.D., an eight-term Republican congressman from Texas
and a former Air Force surgeon, '"You don't listen to what they say, you
watch what they do. The Administration says no, but what we've gotten from
the Pentagon and elsewhere is yes."

One sign of that, says Rick Jahnkow, program coordinator of the nonprofit
Project on Youth and Non-Military Opportunities, was that last fall
"[Presidential adviser] Karl Rove polled Republican members of Congress on
how they felt about the draft. They said they'd support the President."

"This is not surprising," comments Dr. Paul, who sits on the International
Relations Committee and was one of only six Republican congressmen who voted
against the war in Iraq. "Our foreign policy involves us in so much around
the word. To continue to do this, we need more troops." He further points
out that we already have a "de facto draft. You only have to look at how the
Administration has refused to allow troops to end their tours of duty when
their contracts are up," he says.

The Administration is in a box, observes Ned Lebow, Ph.D., presidential
professor of government at Dartmouth College and a former professor of
military strategy at the National War and Naval Colleges. "The Pentagon has
tried to resolve its serious manpower shortages in Iraq by greatly extending
tours of duty. Reservists and Guards can be kept in for as long as the
government says they need them, possibly for years, and this has become
increasingly unacceptable in the political sense at home."

Playing with Numbers?

When FAMILY CIRCLE interviewed Col. Hackworth in late March, he said, "Our
armed forces have had more than 600 fatalities in Iraq and 14,000
casualties." Hackworth's figures, which he received from a senior Pentagon
source, were more than four times higher than the statistics then posted on
the Web site of the Department of Defense. And Stars and Stripes reported
that the Landstuhl Military Hospital in Germany had treated three times more
casualties from Iraq than the Pentagon had posted. Says Col. Hack-worth, "A
lot of lying goes on about casualty rates. Both the Pentagon and the
officers in the field lied about the number of our Vietnam casualties. If a
wounded service-man died in a helicopter while being evacuated for medical
treatment, for example, he wasn't listed as a combat death." (As we went to
press, reported fatalities in Iraq were at 765 and climbing, and casualties
had increased significantly as well.)

Will They or Won't They?

Rumblings about a new draft began last fall when the Defense Department's
Web site posted an ad exhorting Americans over 18 to "Serve Your Community
and the Nation, Become a Selective Service System Local Board Member."

If a military draft is activated, approximately 2,000 local and appeal
boards will decide who gets deferments, postponements or exemptions from
service. The Pentagon has now removed the notice from its Web site and
denies any move to reinstate the draft, stating that the Selective Service
System, which runs the draft boards, is merely launching a routine
recruitment drive as 80 percent of those jobs are now vacant.

The SSS does admit, however, that it is planning for a possible draft of
Arabic linguists, computer experts and medical personnel--doctors, nurses
and technicians, ages 20 to 44. The last time physicians were drafted was
during the Vietnam War. "We began working on scenarios for this after
receiving a request for people with these skills from the Department of
Defense," says SSS spokeswoman Alyce Burton.

According to the Selective Service Annual Performance Plan for 2004, before
next March 31 draft boards must be potentially operational within two and a
half months of a return to conscription. The plan also calls for testing the
draft lottery, examination system and the system that classifies, places and
monitors conscientious objectors.

No Child Left Unrecruited?

The United States spends $3 billion annually on military recruiting. What is
not commonly known is that a great deal of that money is spent in our
schools. The No Child Left Behind Act, signed by President Bush two years
ago, includes a provision that if secondary schools fail to release the
names, addresses and phone numbers of students to military recruiters, they
will lose their Federal funding. Schools must allow military recruiters the
same access to students received by civilian recruiters and colleges.

Jahnkow reports that high-school juniors and seniors (boys and gifts) are
given the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery tests and that
recruiters then show up at their homes. Recruiters admit their aggressive
pursuit of students, even when parents object. ''The only thing that will
get us to stop contacting the family is if they call their congressman,"
says Major Johannes Paraan, head army recruiter for Vermont and northeastern
New York.

"People need to be alerted that these things are happening," says Jahnkow.
"The Pentagon is clearly influencing civilian life and also attempting to
plant seeds that would make the public more accepting of the will of the
military. What is happening in our schools is like a draft in the making for
our children."

Should We Take This Seriously?.

Charles Moskos, Ph.D., of Northwestern University, military adviser to U.S:
presidents and secretaries of defense during his nearly 40-year career,
thinks we should. "I was recently in Iraq, and there just aren't enough U.S.
soldiers on the ground. Military experts estimate we need double the numbers
of troops we currently have there--and we can't achieve that without a

Award-winning journalist Jan Goodwin writes frequently on political issues.

Copyright Family Circle magazine, July 13, 2004

Re:Interesting article on the draft issue (1)

eBayDoug (764290) | about 10 years ago | (#10171461)

Today's kids need to be in the military. I say draftem all! Let God sort em out!

Re:Interesting article on the draft issue (1)

xombo (628858) | about 10 years ago | (#10171479)

A source would have been nice.

Re:Interesting article on the draft issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171513)

While I don't think it is going to happen, I thought this was a really interesting article on the draft issue...and it came out of the Family Circle of all places. If my wife hadn't had it laying around, I would have probably never even heard about this. -- Usurper_ii
Time to get out your reading glasses!

Re:Interesting article on the draft issue (1)

TykeClone (668449) | about 10 years ago | (#10171536)

Good God! Do you know what you're asking for? They can't give a source because Rupert Murdoch and Rumsfield will be at their door 2 seconds after it is cited!

Re:Interesting article on the draft issue (1)

mevans (791269) | about 10 years ago | (#10171497)

Jahnkow reports that high-school juniors and seniors (boys and gifts) are given the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery tests and that recruiters then show up at their homes. boys and _gifts_? only to /. readers :-)

Re:Interesting article on the draft issue (5, Insightful)

praksys (246544) | about 10 years ago | (#10171579)

It is worth noting several things:

(1) Every branch of the military is meeting or exceeding recruitment and re-enlistment goals (unlike in the 1990s).
(2) The all volunteer military used to be twice the size it is now (prior to cuts at the end of the cold war), so there is every reason to think that the military could double in size without a draft.
(3) The politicians warning of a return of the draft are in fact the sponsors of the bills that would bring back the draft. In other words the *only* people showing an interest in the draft are opponents of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
(4) And (3) is no surprise because most of the opposition to the Vietnam war was really opposition to the draft. The last thing that the Bush administration wants is to bring back the draft.

Opponents of these wars think that if the draft is brought back then opposition to the wars will grow. Which in turn is why the Bush administration has no interest in the draft whatsoever. In fact Donald Rumsfeld resisted an expansion of the military by a mere 30,000 volunteer troops. The idea that he would want to expand the military with hundreds of thousands of conscripts is nonsense.

Dwindling oil supplies are great news (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171399)

Finally the economics to make ubiquitous nuclear power a reality.

Site Slash- Censored! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171403)

5 comments and poof! like it never happened...

In other words.... (3, Informative)

damiangerous (218679) | about 10 years ago | (#10171414)

"Things that didn't get as much attention as we think they should." According to their About Us page [] this is just:

"an annual list of 25 news stories of social significance that have been overlooked, under-reported or self-censored by the country's major national news media."

This is a total non-story posed in a dishonestly sensationalistic fashion.

Re:In other words.... (2, Funny)

Fractal Dice (696349) | about 10 years ago | (#10171527)

This is a total non-story posed in a dishonestly sensationalistic fashion. That's right! People should get their news from Fox.

Re:In other words.... (3, Interesting)

Angry Toad (314562) | about 10 years ago | (#10171544)

Project Censored has been around for a long time now. They're hardly sensationalistic - especially when one considers that they rarely get any attention at all from the media. They're left-leaning, sure. They've never pretended any differently.

However, at least they're willing to provide links and references. One rarely sees that much from the right wing crazies who like to smear the work of groups like this.

These stories were ignored, but not censored (5, Insightful)

wired_parrot (768394) | about 10 years ago | (#10171416)

A more appropriate title for this list would have been the 25 most ignored or underreported new stories. I agree that most of the stories mentioned were underreported in the media, they were not censored. Proof being the various references and links shown in each article.

Re:These stories were ignored, but not censored (1)

jez9999 (618189) | about 10 years ago | (#10171534)

Depends how you define censored. If you mean 'no outlet in the entire country could publish anything, on pain of death' then yeah, you're right. But if you mean 'the major networks refused to cover this stuff en masse' then i think the word 'censored' does apply. That's the only way the general public in the US really learns about things these days, isn't it?

I love how we censor (1, Insightful)

xombo (628858) | about 10 years ago | (#10171419)

I love how we censor the very things that could swing the election.

Censored, right... (5, Insightful)

Alaren (682568) | about 10 years ago | (#10171429)

Well, I applaud the effort to get out the good word on stories that probably should have seen a little better coverage.

But isn't it a little alarmist to call this "Project Censored?" The site says that these are "25 news stories of social significance that have been overlooked, under-reported or self-censored by the country's major national news media."

I understand that censorship does not need to originate with the government, and that powerful media conglomorates can create de facto censorship through what they choose to report.

But even this site is choosing a mere 25 stories. How do these 25 get picked? Well, presumably they represent the gap between what big media thinks is "newsworthy" and what this group at Sonoma State thinks is "newsworthy."

That such a gap exists should not be surprising. But when the people on this committee "rank [the stories] in order of importance," they discard hundreds of submissions--and ar thus doing the exact same thing as big media: picking what they think people need to (and, consequently, don't need to) hear.

Good read? Yeah. "Preject Censored?" Not so much.

Free flatscreen monitors [] . No hoax [] .

Re:Censored, right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171525)

This from a guy who has some scam link to 'free' flatscreen monitors.

Coral P2P cache (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171451)

Here []

Biological "viruses" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171458)

> "U.S. Develops Lethal New Viruses"

You can thrash all you like about computer viruses being technically spelt "viruses" but when referring to the biological kind, virii is the original and correct terminology.

Re:Biological "viruses" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171490)

Bzzt. It would be viri, not virii. There's not much more irritating than pretention without knowledge.

Re:Biological "viruses" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171554)

virii is the original and correct terminology.

virii is invented script kiddie jargon used so that one kiddie can know that another kiddie is a moron too.

"hi! my boxen got virii! btw I'm a moron!!!"

I was censored too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171463)

In other news, my plea for everyone to give me $5 last April went UNPUBLISHED and CENSORED by the mass media.

Those right-wing jerks! I need to eat too! Because I didn't read my requests on the front page of the NYT, this is clearly a case of censorship, and I demand retribution.

Thats all the evidence I need, right?

emp in the offing.... (1)

neuraloverload (751606) | about 10 years ago | (#10171466)

how about summer pulse '04 only being officially recognized AFTER the exposure of naval movements on various internet alternative news sites like or that most of these ships are now in southeast asian waters and don't seem to be going anywhere, anytime soon. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171484)

Using that as a source is like using your talking dog as a source. That's guys a racist wacko.

Censored my ass! (2, Insightful)

WombatControl (74685) | about 10 years ago | (#10171470)

Apparently the definition of "censored" for this site are "stories that match our left-leaning biases".

Now, I personally think the media is liberal, and I've done the studies to prove it (a few nights with Lexis-Nexis is enough), but this kind of thing represents a fringe view of the world. Did the authors of this list ever consider that maybe the reasons these "stories" didn't get reported are because they have no basis in fact?

Take reinstating the draft for example. Did the authors of that list ever consider the facts that the Army has met and exceeding its recruiting goals [] , that the Secretary of Defense has said he doesn't want a draft [] and the Joint Chiefs of Staff [] have said the same thing repeatedly? Did they ever consider that the bill to reintroduce the draft came from a group of anti-war congressman as a way of scaring people and was swiftly killed in committee and had no chance of ever passing?

Look, this kind of stuff irks the hell out of me. Telling us that a story that doesn't even pass the smell test has somehow been "censored" is an insult to our critical thinking skills. It's the same old crap as they people who say that the government is keeping aliens on ice at Area 51 right next to the engine that runs on water and the Ark of the Covenant.

Given that Slashdot's audience is supposed to be people with critical thinking skills, I would hope that tripe like this would be seen for what it is. "Censored" my ass!

Re:Censored my ass! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171560)

President Bush was pretty damn sure about those WMD's in Iraq. Why should I trust those in power to tell me their won't be a draft? It would not be in their interest to say they were planning a draft until they were ready and had the borders sealed. The more something is denied the more a speck of truth might exist. Just about everyone has a slant on everything.

Re:Censored my ass! (1)

TykeClone (668449) | about 10 years ago | (#10171572)

By God, they'll have a draft whether they like it or not - How else would Representative Rangle be able to spend more time on TV?

-1: Troll (1)

That's Unpossible! (722232) | about 10 years ago | (#10171475)

Just curious how these articles could be "censored." They are fucking listed right on the page. Did the government actually prevent them from being published? No. The stories just lack so much credibility that even the left-leaning media sources didn't give them much airtime.

Propaganda (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171483)

I would say that web site is pure propaganda. There are dozens of stories suppressed regularly, such as outrageous free-speech suppressing political correctness muggings, that never see the light of day in the mainstream media. All of the points in this article serve a liberal political agenda. Its so blantant I dont think anyone will be fooled, except for those who see what they want to see.

#11: The Media Can Legally Lie (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171485)

I haven't RTFA, but I can bet this refers to good ole fair & balanced FOX. Just turn it off if it gets your progressive panties in a bunch. Fox is no more or less entertainment than any of the other media outlets. Don't delude yourself. All these threats to sue, etc makes you sound as fruitcakey as O'rially.

Slashdot Liberal Bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171493)

What is this, the New York Times?

Hmm (2, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 10 years ago | (#10171506)

A few appear to be missing, notably, "UN nations opposing overthrow of Saddam found to have taken bribes from same".

Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171507)

Funny, i try to bring up the site here at work but the site is blocked by our internal web blocker :/

Profit a motive, really? (1)

ICECommander (811191) | about 10 years ago | (#10171512)

Although the list has a few good points, the site is essentially a statement of liberal ideas (not flamebait), this isn't bad in itself, except that the site appears to promote a neutral image. The site also contains a link to which has profound theories beyond belief and out of this world statements like "profit is a motive for genetic engineering" (flamebait?).

Sandy Bergler Pilfers Terror Memos for Clinton... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171517) not on the list, so we have a real good idea of the political persuasion of the compilers of the list.

Must give away gmail! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171519)

Reply to this thread w/your email address... I have six invites to get rid off.

Re:Must give away gmail! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171539)

OK, here goes. :0 food

Project Whine (2, Insightful)

Detritus (11846) | about 10 years ago | (#10171526)

The compilers of the list should consider the possibility that, instead of censorship, the press and the public are just not that interested in the stories and issues that the list makers think are important. Activists often suffer from the delusion that the public would support their cause if they only knew the facts.

why is this on slashdot?? (1)

Dr Kool, PhD (173800) | about 10 years ago | (#10171528)

Should read - "The Top 25 Propaganda Leftist Stories". Go ahead, mod me down, it's the truth.

They missed the most censored one. It is... (4, Funny)

ColourlessGreenIdeas (711076) | about 10 years ago | (#10171538)

This post has been removed in the interests of national security. We thank you for your cooperation.

Bush & Coke (4, Insightful)

TrentL (761772) | about 10 years ago | (#10171550)

Wonder if this [] story will get covered by the American press. The factual basis seems much more sound than the Swift Boat Liars.

Leftist crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10171558)

Looks more like "stories that leftist greenies who support dictators would like to shove down the throats of right-thinking people."

Is there a single story in this list that doesn't blame America first or promote communism and its stalking horse, environmentalism?

I don't understand... (1)

feepness (543479) | about 10 years ago | (#10171570)

If they are so "censored" how come we can read them??!

How come when I read them there are half-a-dozen links for "additional reading"?

I think someone is unclear on the meaning of censorship.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>