Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Stories of 2007

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the read-em-and-lean dept.

Censorship 545

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'."

cancel ×

545 comments

An important debating point (5, Interesting)

Winckle (870180) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286567)

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 (4, Interesting)

retrosteve (77918) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286655)

Nice try, but that's just what the newspapers and TV stations will say when challenged. It's pretty obvious that it's a bogus line, at least sometimes.

Or do you really believe that people are more interested in Paris Hilton's jail term than in the president wiretapping them? Those Lindsay Lohan stories really must represent the public's true interest. Look! Look at the funny monkey! Look, Britney has no panties!

It's well known, for example, that Murdoch's affiliates receive "talking points" for the day showing them what stories they should promote. Affiliates who don't toe the line risk problems.

Re:An important debating point (4, Insightful)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286693)

Or do you really believe that people are more interested in Paris Hilton's jail term than in the president wiretapping them?
Absolutely. I've met plenty of these people. It's not a universal sentiment, but there seems to be enough of them to encourage news organizations to take the easy path of covering trashy gossip instead of doing investigative reporting. Sort of a "chicken and egg" issue.

Re:An important debating point (4, Interesting)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286827)

[quote]Or do you really believe that people are more interested in Paris Hilton's jail term than in the president wiretapping them?[/quote]

You're pretty blind if you think that's [i]not[/i] the case. The attitude people take with wiretapping is "bad guys will get caught, and people with nothing to hide will be fine." The attitude people take with celebrities is "HOLY SHIT! I need to know EVERYTHING that EVER happens to them!"

Re:An important debating point (2, Funny)

beadfulthings (975812) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286831)

You may have a point. I just took it to Google Fight [googlefight.com] , where I entered the terms "Global Warming" and "Britney Spears." Global Warming seems to have won by 67,800,000 results to Britney's 31,500,000. It also beats out Paris Hilton by a somewhat smaller margin and Lindsay Lohan by a huge margin.

Re:An important debating point (5, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287149)

Lindsay Lohan has way bigger tits than Global Warming.

Happy 21st!

Re:An important debating point (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19287081)

"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 (3, Interesting)

Ice Wewe (936718) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286663)

Net neutrality isn't really a problem for every day consumers. I'm sure some of them that are tech savvy enough to understand it will care, but a majority of the people who just use the internet to check their email and the news don't care. If I even tried to explain net neutrality to my parents, they'd simply shake their heads and ask why we couldn't just get along. The media has to cover stories that their audience cares about. If they print something to complex for most of their target audience, people will become confused, and frustrated.

So, nerds unite, less large corporations stop grandmothers from looking at the latest Sierra Club newsletter.

Re:An important debating point (4, Insightful)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286773)

The mass media doesn't report the news anymore. If the so called news isn't entertaining and doesn't fit the demographics for the ads, then its ignored. That's not censorship. That's the free market at work. The news -- like the truth -- is out there if you're willing to look for it. Don't expect the mass media to spoon feed you real news anymore.

BTW, Most of the stories in the list appeared in the NY Times. So much for censorship...

Re:An important debating point (1)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287191)

The news -- like the truth -- is out there if you're willing to look for it.

But that would require effort well beyond that of tv channel surfing.

Re:An important debating point (5, Insightful)

ngworekara (1027704) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287051)

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 (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287231)

...People should be wise enough to know what they're dealing with.....

These sources of information, biased as they are, are now difficult to believe. In this world where we have unbelievably enhanced communication (compared to even 50 years ago), one would want to believe *someone*. It's very difficult to do. There are some organizations that try to keep track of political lies, and media spins (MediaMatters.Org comes to mind, although they seem largely focused on monitoring a perceived 'right wing' composite).

The list of censored items is simply harrowing... frightening, and there were even a few on the list that a researcher like me were unaware of.

The local Gannett-owned newspaper where I come from are lap-dog sycophants of local business, and the well-funded politicians (by the same local business and regional interests). They are rarely believable, get their facts wrong, and have a rich-white-boy way of looking at real problems, like local pollution problems, crime, and tax money pissed away down ratholes-- with glee.

There is an establishment..... something in the middle.... and an anti-establishment. I think the Noam Chomsky/Vonnegut/WEB Dubois way of looking at things has some merit, but I've read all of the aforementioned and know that most people haven't. It makes me the eternal skeptic..... and I'm often rewarded; I want to be trusting but the controlled media lies like rugs.

Re:An important debating point (5, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287055)

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 (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287179)

Accepting your characterization of censorship, government preventing something from being said is still much more of a concern than a citizen choosing not to say it.

Ignoring the distinction is foolish.

Re:An important debating point (1)

Jshadias (897066) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287089)

It isn't censorship. It's a combination of the apathy and ignorance of viewers, and the apathy and irresponsibility of the media.

Re:An important debating point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19287293)

That's no combination. Which is more likely:

1) The attitudes of media and viewers are completely unrelated.
2) Media is irresponsible because viewers are ignorant.
3) Viewers are ignorant because the media are irresponsible.

I can't believe #1 is... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19286577)

**** *** *******! Do you believe that? I mean, really!

That wasn't a troll. (1)

Torvaun (1040898) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287327)

That was humor. Mod it funny, if you so desire. But no one should have wasted points downmodding him.

Dear Vexorian (1)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286611)

The rest of the world cares not at all about your concerns.

Pity, that.

Dear PHEDRU5 (1, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287117)

The concerns mentioned by Vexorian are everyone's problems. They matter and people do care. The kind of person that does not care is not reading or watching the news anyway, so the news might as well carry something more important that Paris Hilton and Britny Spears gossip. People who care about that can get what they want at the supermarket check out. Public broadcasters and other users of public servitude are supposed to serve the public interest. Newspapers swear they do the same. Yet all of these channels are filled with bullshit made by people who would like to do to the internet what they did to it in China. If they get away with it, you won't know the difference again.

Dear twitter... (2, Insightful)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287249)

My remarks to Vexorian apply to you as well.

Oh, I know you'd love to establish a slave society where you could ride above it all, commanding obedience from those less politically evolved than you. I'm afraid, however, that you live in a world where pretty much everyone in the US is fat, dumb, happy, and wonderously well over-fed, and likes it that way.

There are a number of lesons to take from this.

1. Don't get between an American and the American's food bowl.

2. Don't disturb the American's food bowl.

3. Don't bother the American, CSI is playing.

Do any or all of these long enough, and we will nuke you.

I mean, we're all about the pursuit of happiness.

Leave us alone, and the 5% of us that are intellectuals will dazzle you and the world.

China is what it is because of grim leftists like you. America is what it is because of happy epicureans like Belushi.

I prefer Belushi to you. You're a little too pinched.

Did you know that arrestees worldwide now demand their Miranda rights?

Not worth reading... (5, Insightful)

SoapBox17 (1020345) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286625)

#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... [xkcd.com]

Re:Not worth reading... (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286839)

Why's that? Have you already decided what all of the facts are going to be, if they ever come out?

Re:Not worth reading... (2, Informative)

SoapBox17 (1020345) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287043)

No, because its based on pseudo-science and conspiracy theories. It is to such a ridiculous level that aMaddox even covered it. You can find [thebestpag...iverse.net] numerous [loosechangeguide.com] refutations [popularmechanics.com] if you take 3 seconds to search.

Re:Not worth reading... (0, Troll)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287115)

...because its based on pseudo-science...

Yeah, like evolution..But creationism is real science and should be taught as such in school.

Re:Not worth reading... (1)

Straif (172656) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287217)

The fact they also reference the Lancet studies to back up their claims of unreported atrocities clearly shows the authors bias.

Many of their underreported stories are underreported simply because they can't find a second source to back up the claims made. Even in the most politically biased news rooms they like to cover themselves with some verifiable facts.

Re:Not worth reading... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19287233)

Maddox is not a physicist, and I am guessing you aren't either. There is actually good reason to wish to conduct an investigation. To declair it a conspiracy... Perhaps extreme, but far, far too many things went wrong with the buildings and the series of events leading up to their fall to dismiss them as simple bureaucratic failure and lack of structural integrity. My guess is that you have not looked into either side of the arguments/facts about the events, but it is not reasonable to assume, based completely on science, that the buildings collapsed due to "weak floor joints" or "the heat of the jet fuel". As far as steel goes, jet fuel doesn't produce very hot temperatures and explosions like that don't last long enough to melt it. That stuff you see in movies when planes and cars explode, those are high-volume, high-powered explosives.

Re:Not worth reading... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19286881)

Well, I too was disappointed to see this story on the list, as this story and the professor who promulgated it was covered thoroughly here. So it never really was censored or ignored and doesn't belong on that list from that spect.

This story was covered, but once it was, it faded from view as it rightly should have IMHO. I personally think that islamo-fascists love this story, because it takes the eyes of the undisputed fact that Islamic fanatics drove two airplanes into the World Trade Centers.

It's a shame, because it casts a pall over the other stories on the page.

Re:Not worth reading... (1)

megaditto (982598) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286961)

Sure, the towelhats may have flown the jets into the buildings, but cui bono? [slashdot.org]

Why don't you ask yourself for whose benefit it may have been done?

Re:Not worth reading... (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287267)

...because it takes the eyes of the undisputed fact...

And who is exactly is the source of these "facts"?
"If the glove don't fit"...But you just knew he's guilty, right?
Did you ever suspect that Ollie North was/is a criminal before the Iran-Contra hearings?
"I was under medication when I made the decision not to burn the tapes." --Richard Nixon
Mmmm, Kool-Aid good, huh?

summary of most of them (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19286627)

They are censored stories because on the balance, they make the USA look very, very bad on the world stage - the sort of evil the former USSR could only dream of. It is little surprise then, that these stories about American imperialism are censored, and that Americans don't even wish to read them in the first place. Seeing conclusive evidence that your country tortures people to death is not something people "wish" to hear, because it makes them face an uncomfortable fact. It's easier to stick your head in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong, even as your nation becomes hated by more and more of the world for its deeds.

All that's necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing...

Re:summary of most of them (5, Insightful)

slarabee (184347) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286697)

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.

Re:summary of most of them (1)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286807)

Every single one of them is a liberal activist with some political axe to grind.

Ah, then they must be full of shit. Everyone knows that you can't trust those people, so why bother to actually look into what they're reporting when it's easier to just make judgments based on political sentiment?

Re:summary of most of them (2, Interesting)

Xonstantine (947614) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286939)

Ah, then they must be full of shit.

Pretty much. They would be less full of shit if they bothered to post a token non-left wing censored story.

Re:summary of most of them (1)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287329)

Ah, then they must be full of shit. Pretty much. They would be less full of shit if they bothered to post a token non-left wing censored story.

I didn't realize that doing so would affect the individual validity/irrelevance of all the other selected stories. My bad; I keep forgetting that the presence of quantitative "balance" is the best indicator of truth. Perhaps I don't watch enough cable news.

Re:summary of most of them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19287107)

No, you fucking jackass sack of shit, it shows that they HAVE A CLEAR AS DAY BIAS, cocksucker.

And a 9/11 conspiracy story in there to boot? LOL! Oh man.

But I suppose assholes like you believe that shit. The big corporate media are just propaganda lapdogs for the right wing, and only the bloggers and slashdot posters know the "truth".

Fuck off.

Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone (1)

Bayoudegradeable (1003768) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287067)

Censored?? The Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico has been getting GREAT coverage every year from the Times Picayune. Check nola.com sometime this summer and you will find the annual report on the Dead Zone. The problem with the Dead Zone is NOT coverage, the problem is that no farm state congress rep/Senator would EVER work to stop this problem as it would be way too costly to the farmers. Controlling fertilzer=higher costs for Billy Bob Tractor Jockey and increased costs would mean lost votes for the congress folks that voted to conrol such substances...Thanks middle America. Don't come crying when Gulf seafood is wiped out because of your grain fertilizer.

Re:summary of most of them (1)

Jshadias (897066) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287171)

This list would be more accurately described as 'Top 25 Things Liberals Want to Whine About This Year'.
Take a look at the list. There are only a few things that could be considered "whining".

Name Calling Won't Dismiss the Issues (3, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287317)

This list would be more accurately described as 'Top 25 Things Liberals Want to Whine About This Year'.

Haliburton helping Iran to build a bomb is a "Liberal" issue?

A free and uncensored news media is a "Liberal Whine" issue?

Properly accounting for eight billion dollars worth of "Homeland Security" spending is a big spending "Liberal" issue?

Commrad, I think you would prefer the old USSR or China, where there is not government corruption because those who notice are put in jail. Oh dear, number 14 is about the former KGB is building detention centers in the US. Looks like you and your "conservative" buddies are doing a good job. Keep it up and there will only be one company and one party here in the US. When that happens, you will have to change the names you call people. May I suggest "reactionary whiners" ?

Re:summary of most of them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19286897)

Seeing conclusive evidence that your country tortures people to death is not something people "wish" to hear, because it makes them face an uncomfortable fact.

It also seems to imply that some countries do not torture poeple to death. Seriously. Everyone's taxes go toward intelligence agencies that operate on two rules: do whatever you want and don't get caught.

We all pay other people to murder and kill and spy on our potential enemies for us.

"Western" meaning China and Russia... (1)

cirby (2599) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287005)

...in the Congo story, at least.

Generally, "Project Censored" relies on people believing whatever they suggest, and not realizing that most of the reason people ignored those stories was that they were, well, just plain wrong.

Re:summary of most of them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19287129)

Very true. Thank you.

It should be noted that the FBI has surpassed the wildest dreams of the KGB. The FBI stamps out the spark of rebellion before it gets anywhere near starting a fire.

How long can they maintain this status quo? Not much longer at all...America is rotting from the inside very quickly.

Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19286633)

#18 Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story

It wasn't planes! New York doesn't even exist, man!

Let them hear! (2, Insightful)

guruevi (827432) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286635)

You should, just as me, talk to your friends and family about these subjects. It's good that the world gets to know what goes on in the world! We all have the obligation to criticize all attacks on free speech.

The war in Iraq, the wars in Congo is watered down for a lot of reasons by all mainstream media. However, there is a solution: daily news podcasts, the blogosphere and a lot of 'new media' has (as always) been used by so called (as the mainstream media calls it) alternative journalists just as the "pirate" radiostations in the 70's, the "resistance" during the world wars and in the soviet nations kept us informed about what was really going on while oppressive fascists tried to influence the sheeple what we thought. /. is one of those sources where DRM, the DMCA and censoring is a frequent subject, however the mainstream media doesn't ever give any attention to it.

Re:Let them hear! (1)

megaditto (982598) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287099)

Why would you want your friends/family to realize what kind of a crazy conspiracy kook you really are?

But then again, judging from your ramblings in the rest of your post they already know it.

This List Is Useless and Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19286637)

None of those stories were from this year, and the fact they put out this list before 2007 is halfway over shows their pre-set agenda.

I would have expected the slashdot editors to show some common decency to not post crap like this on the front page, but since this is great flamewar material, this is what you get.

Umm sounds like it was posted by (2, Informative)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286639)

Sounds like a zealot extremist. While I believe some, I'm more than sure someone *heard* something and is trying to get their name in lights.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Re:Umm sounds like it was posted by (0, Troll)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287017)

Sounds like a zealot extremist ... Move along, nothing to see here.

Your mind tricks won't work on me. I live outside the US and information like this is COMMON on our news broadcasts.

I'm still amazed at how much corporations can brainwash american couch potatoes.

Re:Umm sounds like it was posted by (1)

pilsner.urquell (734632) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287177)

Tripe isn't worth reading. Stories are obviously the product of the far left wing kook show the same one that is going to bite some members congress in there ass.

Take for example Elliot D. Cohen who authored the first story. He writes profusely for the Democratic Underground DOT com with many unfounded stories about George Bush. In reading some of these others pieces it is obvious that that man doesn't understand anything about war, military actions or American History. In his article titled "How Do You Spell DICTATOR"? [buzzflash.com] if he truly believes the President to be a dictator he obviously hasn't read any thing about Abraham Lincoln who was a real tyrant.

Cohen probably believes that Peter III of Russia was a military genius

The list (4, Informative)

Bueller_007 (535588) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286675)

#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

On balance (1, Interesting)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286777)

The sort of story /. would just have to disseminate.

Does anyone else out there have the feeling that /. is increasingly an anti-American, leftist swamp, of no real importance to anyone?

Re:On balance (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19286821)

Yes, I post anon whenever I have to go against a leftist issue since they use offtopic, redundant and troll as substitutes for 'I disagree with you'.

I say "Screw it" (4, Funny)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286965)

What I lose on the anti-global warming posts, I make up on Simpons-based cracks.

Re:On balance (1, Funny)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286843)

Does anyone else out there have the feeling that [the White House] is increasingly an anti-American, [rightist] swamp, of no real importance to anyone [except lobbyists]

Good post, just had to fix a bit of your spelling.

Your attempt at humor falls flat. (1, Flamebait)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287033)

You don't make me laugh. Work on it.

Re:Your attempt at humor falls flat. (0, Offtopic)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287297)

You don't make me laugh. Work on it.

Aww, and I was trying so hard to amuse you, as opposed to others who might have read your post and thought, "Wow, what an idiot you'd have to be thinking of /. as a "leftist" site, given its typical libertarian tone and the large number of posts critical of this particular article."

Oh, sorry. (0, Flamebait)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287335)

I attributed your original post to a lame attempt at humor.

I see now that you are a well-indoctrinated, humorless moron.

Please forgive the mistake, and good luch with the rest of your empty life.

Re:On balance (1)

kmac06 (608921) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286873)

Nope. It's not "increasingly" the case, it always has been.

Forgive my ignorance. (1)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287059)

I've not been here for the entire ride.

Re:On balance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19286877)

> Does anyone else out there have the feeling that /. is increasingly an anti-American,

Does anyone else out there have the feeling that /. (and an increasing part of the whole WORLD) is anti-American *because* of America's killing of Iraqi civilians, torturing detainees to death, derailing the Kyoto protocol, arresting people in other nations for violating *American* laws, and generally getting in everbody else's face?

Oh, wait... no, I'm sure you're right, it's just "anti-Americanism" with no cause whatsoever! It's just, uhhh, random. Yeah, that's it. Couldn't possibly be that the rest of the world is scared absolutely shitless of the USA right now. It must just be a vast conspiracy that the whole rest of the world is pulling on you for the fun of it.

Re:On balance (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19286921)

Does anyone else out there have the feeling that /. (and an increasing part of the whole WORLD) is anti-American *because* of America's killing of Iraqi civilians, torturing detainees to death, derailing the Kyoto protocol, arresting people in other nations for violating *American* laws, and generally getting in everbody else's face?

Nope, most people that are anti-American because the United States of America is the richest, most powerful, most influential nation in the history of mankind. Many people just don't like to see that we have dominated in almost every facet of human society development for the last 60+ years.

In short, you are just jealous because we are winners and you are losers.

Try some humor... (0, Flamebait)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287265)

Forget actual facts, this is /..

Instead, spice up your remarks with vulgarity, ad hominems, and Simpsons extracts.

You'll be posting with Excellent karma in no time.

Thanks for the comment. (1)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287091)

Obviously your propaganda feed is a little different from my news feed.

Re:On balance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19287269)

increasingly an anti-American

Lulz. Halliburton sold equipment to Iran (let's drop the nuclear bit here, and keep in mind that Iran is under an embargo, and you're not supposed to sell ANYTHING to them.) Slashdot reports on the public news not reporting on it, and who's the enemy of America here? Halliburton, for selling equipment to our enemy? The media for not exposing Halliburton as the traitors they are?

No, it's slashdot, because the Republicans have such a short memory they can't recall when slashdot was bashing Clinton for the stupid shit he did, they simply assume that Slashdot must be a "leftist swamp".

Good game, man. Good game.

Ah yes, Halliburton. (1)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287313)

Do you have any idea of how big that company is? In how many countries it's incorporated? And you want to blame all on one tiny part - if teh allegation turns out to be actually true?

Shibboleth. In the original meaning.

You're not terribly smart, are you?

"All you can eat" Democracy and Freedom(tm) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19286677)

move along now, nothing to see here, look over there a three-headed monkey, wanna know the 10 top hints for being hot(tm) and sexy(tm)? wanna enlarge your penis? wanna make a quick buck? nude barely legal girls right around the corner; investing in real-estate hassle and risk free! what do you think of the liberal media destroying america? do you think supporting the troops should be an option for patriotic citizens? did you know Doom 4 is in the making? no? how about Lord of the Rings the Sequel is coming out? did you check out the new deals at eBay? how about your options in the stock market? has your gaming machine taken a toll, check out the new XPS series by Dell; I hear there are huge discounts at Banana Republic right now, hurry; I'm sorry what where we talking about? nevermind, it wasn't important; thank god we live in this "all you can eat" democracy and freedom(tm) at only $10.99/person...

Wrong Title (5, Insightful)

FS (10110) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286695)

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.

wow, just wow (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19286849)

you are a perfect example of what's wrong with the world. Instead of trying to figure out a solution to a problem, you rather choose sides even if the side you choose is doing something evil. And what's worse, you try to IGNORE the problem, attack the "supposed" opposition, and finally dumb down the arguments in an attempt to dismiss the problem.

Grow up. The sooner people stop taking sides, the faster the world would become a better place. Stop thinking "I'm a republican" or "I'm a democrat", and start thinking "I'm a human being, and what these people are doing is wrong".

Re:wow, just wow (4, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287049)

Grow up. The sooner people stop taking sides, the faster the world would become a better place.

Such delicious (and I presume, unintentional) irony on your part. Can't you see that the GP is pointing out that the compilers of the list ARE taking a side? They are deliberately hyping things in a way to make them as divisive as possible. You're ragging on EXACTLY the wrong person. Grow up, indeed!

From TFA: (2, Informative)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286709)

  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. Pentagon Exempt from Freedom of Information Act
  8. The World Bank Funds Israel-Palestine Wall
  9. Expanded Air War in Iraq Kills More Civilians
  10. Dangers of Genetically Modified Food Confirmed
  11. Pentagon Plans to Build New Landmines
  12. New Evidence Establishes Dangers of Roundup
  13. Homeland Security Contracts KBR to Build Detention Centers in
  14. Chemical Industry is EPA's Primary Research Partner
  15. Ecuador and Mexico Defy US on International Criminal Court
  16. Iraq Invasion Promotes OPEC Agenda
  17. Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story
  18. Destruction of Rainforests Worst Ever
  19. Gold Mining Threatens Ancient Andean Glaciers
  20. Billions in Homeland Security Spending Undisclosed
  21. US Oil Targets Kyoto in Europe
  22. Cheney's Halliburton Stock Rose Over 3000 Percent Last Year
  23. US Military in Paraguay Threatens Region

Wouldn't you know it; the most important story wasn't even listed!
It all started back when +++ATHSHHSY&#^^# NO CARRIER

Who changed the definition of censorship? (4, Insightful)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286743)

Last I heard, censorship is when The Man(tm) takes forcible action to squash a story that's damaging, incriminating, or otherwise detrimental to The Powers That Be(tm). You know, like North Korea killing stories of mass starvation, or good old Soviet-style disinformation and destruction of the concept of a free press like what's going on in...old Soviet-style Russia.

However, while I was napping last night, someone conveniently changed the definition to mean "when the mass media doesn't give a certain pet story/cause/event of mine the attention I think it deserves."

Somebody call Websters. Unless, of course, the story headline is wrong, and this is merely someone upset their pet story/cause/event isn't getting the attention they think it deserves... ...nah, that couldn't be it.

We, the people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19287027)

A natural language is defined through common use. If you don't like it, move to France, where even this simple fact is fought tooth and nail.

Botch's definition of censorship (5, Interesting)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287119)

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.

Censorhip, new definition (3, Informative)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287133)

"When nobody else is worried about your obsessions."

Of 2007? (3, Funny)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286763)

Did the year end already? Man, I gotta quit drinkin' because I thought it was May.

Re:Of 2007? (1)

Icarus1919 (802533) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287037)

It's a news tactic designed to get people to read. Really, all the stories are from 2006, but most people would look at "Top 25 Censored Stories of 2006" and think: "2006? That's old news, what's happening NOW?!"

Thus, top stories of 2007. 2007 is now baby. 2006 is so last year.

Re:Of 2007? (2)

imperious_rex (845595) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287095)

Yeah, WTF is it with these recent Top/Most/Best/Worst/etc of 2007 lists?? Is the news media that starved for eyeballs they need to pretend it's late December and crank out these stupid lists? Will we be seeing "Top 10 Natural Disasters of 2007" or "Worst Celebrity Scandals of 2007" in the next few weeks?

Re:Of 2007? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19287331)

Obviously, someone has pushed the big red button, and the media knows but can't tell us.
I salute this effort to sneak the news past the pre-screening and out to us, in the guise of an article about censorship, no less.

Re:Of 2007? (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287309)

We're too focused on the arrival of January, 2009. The steady decline is a sure thing at least till then. And the smart money is on more of the same.

So, let me see if I get this... (4, Insightful)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286769)

People who dissent against a war that is destroying America's military capability are treasonous hippies, but it's cool for Halliburton to actually enable a nuclear program conducted in the "Axis of Evil?"

Add "treason" to the list of words made meaningless by this corrupt administration and its enablers, along with "freedom," "strength," and "morality."

And (4, Funny)

bluegreenone (526698) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286783)

And who could forget #26, the remarkable story of ______ _______ _ __ ______ _____ ____ _____ _________. I personally was shocked and amazed when I heard that one, and am glad the government didn't manage to stop the word from getting out.
...
NJ Transit [nynj.net] , PATH train [nynj.net] schedules online

Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why... (1, Interesting)

JAB Creations (999510) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286793)

Remember the evil Soviet Union with the evil communists we used to be so uptight about? We're becoming just like them. Cultural Marxism has been here for a long while now and you can scream the race card but if Jews didn't own and control the media then they wouldn't be the ones at fault. Five blacks brutally murder, rape, and do unspeakable acts. When Imus made a comment (that was taken out of context) you but you didn't know what had happened you could swear the media reacted like he had raped fifty black women. Yet this story never saw the day of light... PDF - http://www.natallnews.com/images/teaser/Knoxville_ Murders_NA.pdf [natallnews.com] and a website... http://www.channonchristian.com/ [channonchristian.com] Tell me that's not worthy news? Of course cultural Marxism is against whites (specifically the white male) claiming classes degenerate society.

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why. (1)

CaffeineAddict2001 (518485) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286917)

Oh puh-leese.

What's interesting is that a pretty white couple gets raped and that is what sets you off. Had this couple been black you wouldn't give a damn.

Anytime a pretty white girl goes missing the media has feeding frenzy. Black girls go missing all the time and you won't see a single story about it. To insinuate that whites are being robbed of justice because of "Cultural Marxism" is completely retarded.

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why. (1)

JAB Creations (999510) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286987)

Typical tactics of those who think they are in the right but are not. This story is a clear cut case of black-on-white hate crime. Cultural-Marxists and their supporters (such as you) will use the power of suggestion to downplay what happened. I think your opinion would change if someone poured bleach down your throat and set you on fire to cover up their crimes after already having cut off parts of your body and raped you.

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why. (1)

Kelz (611260) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287143)

I don't think he'd have much of an opinion if that happened since he'd be dead.

Fancy vocabulary but no real substance here. Plus you post a link to a white supremacist holocaust-denying anti-semitic website to prove your claims. Sorry.

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19287007)

"Anytime a pretty white girl goes missing the media has feeding frenzy. Black girls go missing all the time and you won't see a single story about it. To insinuate that whites are being robbed of justice because of "Cultural Marxism" is completely retarded.
" ------------------- Hey dumbshit did you not read what was written? The media never reported this and when a black is down on his/her luck here come the Dynamic Duo, Jesse Jackson and the boy wonder Al Sharpton calling the race card and up in arms! Blacks have for so many years scream injustice and unfair treatment but now they are dishes out exactly what they have bitched about for years. All i have to say is grow the fuck up! Oh and i do not have time to waste by signing up for this bullshit comment site. My name is Jamie and i am not coward and here is my email address OneGravenKiss@aim.com so feel free to humor me with your blind bullshit.

Re:Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why. (1)

dreddnott (555950) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286995)

Oh, so we control the media, eh? Red Sea pedestrians run the world? So where's my bag of Jew Gold? Where's my direct line to Zion Command? When do I get to lord it over the goyim? It's my birthright, after all!

What an Amazing Pile of Liberal Bullshit (0, Flamebait)

quakeaddict (94195) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286803)

none of this stuff was censored....half of these stories were spouted by Rosie on "the View"....which says ALOT.

Interesting to read since its old... (2, Insightful)

Gybrwe666 (1007849) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286811)

This thing appears to be 2-3 years old. So after reading a bit, it is interesting to compare their projections on some of these to the reality.

I have to second the thought that many of these were dreamed up by zealots.

However, at least one of them is easily challengable on facts, without quoting anything.

Take a deep look at #17. History (at least the 1+ years since the article was written) has proven that the oil companies have not yet benefitted from Iraq (and may never). The profits of the oil companies are a direct result of them avoiding R&D and, most importantly, strenuously avoiding the upgrade and replacement of aging infrastructure *WITHIN* the US. The reason oil prices are high is because our stateside refineries are a mess. Its supply and demand, but it has little to nothing to do with OPEC.

This is something the oil companies can/could/have done without ever invading Iraq. In fact, its been going on since Clinton was in office, if not before. Linking oil company profits to Bush is at best ludicrous.

I'd recommend taking a close look at these "articles". If any of them are comparable to #17, I'd have to say that the entire site is suspect.

Bill

Wayne Madsen? (2, Insightful)

wytcld (179112) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286847)

For accuracy and truth on Central Africa, look to people like ... Wayne Madsen


As a sometime reader of the lefty blogs, I can recall dozens of times where people would reference stories by Wayne Madsen about nefarious conspiracies on which the evidence was just about to publicly emerge, and on which he had unrivaled sources, he claimed. The thing is, with every single one of these his reporting turned out to be bunk. He's a good writer, in the sense that his stories are self-consistent and often also fit well with better-sourced reports elsewhere, but he always steps beyond the known into stuff that in retrospect he just makes up. It's the sort of fiction that people on the left are prone to believe, since it fits generally with the more paranoid edge of our worldview. But the man's an embarrassment.

So, yeah, underlying the claims about all of these "censored" stories (all of which are out there - nothing was new to me among them - but sure they deserve more coverage and analysis than they get) are people credulous enough to believe Wayne Madsen. Sad!

Uneven quality (1)

Belacgod (1103921) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286863)

The writing in some of the middle ones borders on conspiracy-theory crazy--"If you are reading the mainstream newspapers or listening to National Public Radio, you are contributing to your own mental illness, no matter how astute you believe yourself to be at "balancing" or "deciphering" the code" from the one about Congo. Many of these are important and swept under the rug, but many others are just these guys' pet issues, and their ideologies blind them to the shakiness of their claims. In short, yes we know the MSM only covers things that they deem exciting. Yes, the average person never hears about lots of important things. No, these 25 are no more the "top 25 censored stories" than the "top 10 dead computer languages" from a few days ago were really the top 10 dead computer languages.

List is VERY hit and miss (4, Interesting)

DumbSwede (521261) | more than 7 years ago | (#19286955)

Some of these stories have merit, some are exaggerated, and some are spun to make America look bad because private industries have commercial interests in turbulent regions of the world. I see no evidence that the 9-11 conspiracy theory has been "censored." US celebrities like Rosie O'Donnel and Sean Penn bring this one up all the time. Just like you can find the strange stray biologist that supports creationism, this camp has found one stray physicist to support this conspiracy crap. By including it in the list just shows the list on whole to be an agenda disguised as journalism by pandering to a left leaning fan base.

Now before I'm attacked as a right wing kook, let me say I tend to be a liberal on social issues, and think there are plenty of stories that need more attention when it comes to social fairness. But just because people yawn or don't believe you, doesn't mean you are being censored. I'd say about half of this list is the proponents just being crybabies that the public (rightly or wrongly) doesn't care more. Maybe the authors should find irrefutable evidence for their assertions or write in more challenging ways that defies being ignored.

These aren't censored. (1)

Bongo Bill (853669) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287009)

We're reading them now, aren't we?

End of the year already? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287063)

December 31, 2007 called: it wants its story headline back.

Beware of the company you keep (1)

vrmlguy (120854) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287145)

I agree that Net Neutrality hasn't had as much coverage as it deserves, but has anyone read the rest of the list?

If you are reading the mainstream newspapers or listening to National Public Radio, you are contributing to your own mental illness, no matter how astute you believe yourself to be at "balancing" or "deciphering" the code.
Keith Harmon Snow, you lost me with this paragraph. I don't think many people will catargorize misinformation as mental illness. And what's up with the qoutes around "balancing" and "deciphering"? Just because someone is (in your opinion) unable to do something doesn't turn their efforts into some sort of deceitful act.

But breaking international and domestic law has not been a concern of an administration led by a "president" who has claimed "authority" to disobey over 750 laws passed by Congress.
Dahr Jamail, you've got quote problems as well. Like it or not, Shrub *is* the president, and saying the word "authority" in a funny, quavery, voice with a flashlight held under your chin isn't going to impress anyone.

Sorry, Project Censored, I'm sure you're trying to make positive changes in the world, but I've given up on reading the rest of the article. You causes may be valid, but please don't act like fruitcakes when you try to make your points.

I am gay !!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19287187)

Now Censor That! I dare ya !!!

It's not censorship... (1)

StealthyRoid (1019620) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287199)

If it's not censored. That "mainstream" media news outlets didn't spend all year trumpeting these stories from the rooftops does not mean that there was any censorship. No one was _prevented_ from talking about them, as the article itself proves. People did talk about them, and wrote things about them.
Also, you should probably title this article "Top 25 Articles the Left Wanted the Media to Spend a Billion Hours On". I mean, come on, like 25% of the stories are ZOMFG CHENEY HALLIBURTON comments, including the "#2" story of the year by Jason Leopold, who has time and time again been proven a liar and a disreputable source as a journalist. The other stories are a mixture of internationalism and environmentalism. You _really_ mean to say that the top 25 "censored" stories of the year just magically happen to be about things that only Leftists give a shit about?
What about the confiscation of guns by authorities post-Katrina? You know, where the cops went by the houses of law-abiding citizens and demanded their guns at a time when looting and violence were at their peak? Nobody in the MSM talked about that. Or how about the 19 year old Iranian girl sentenced to death because she fought off one of her attempted rapists? Or the other Iranian girls who have been sentenced and executed for being whores after they were raped? Bleh.

I can see a couple of reasons... (2, Insightful)

Eric Damron (553630) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287215)

The really important thing to remember is that almost all of our "news" providers are owned by a couple of mega corporations.

There is probably some censorship going on because of this. i.e. They won't air anything that will hurt their bottom line or upset their benefactors. But I think mostly its that as corporations do, they try to do everything on the cheap. It's much cheaper to get a few fluff stories and run them everywhere than it is to do real journalism.

I remember a time before all of the TV stations were owned by a few corporations and each station had news people who would investigate and compete with other stations for the best story. Now it's all just spoon fed to them.

As a society we are poorer because of corporate greed.

Mainstream media like simple, scary issues (3, Interesting)

ConfusedSelfHating (1000521) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287277)

Like killer bees. People know what bees are. People don't want to be stung by bees. You then put a fancy title on it: "Killer Bees Spread NORTHWARD!" and you have a perfect story for the evening news. It's even better when you imply that the watcher's children are in danger: "Pervo Bees in a van try to pick up kids outside a school!". And then imply it may be the school that the watcher's children go to. If all else fails, start making it sexy news: "Special Report: Is Cheerleading the first step to STRIPPING? Is your daughter at risk? Are the killer bees involved? We ask several young cheerleaders if they feel pressured to take their clothes off. And what sort of pressure would be required to get them naked. Film at eleven."

not really censored (3, Insightful)

belmolis (702863) | more than 7 years ago | (#19287305)

I agree that many of these issue deserve more attention than they have received, though it isn't clear whether that is because the news agencies aren't interested or because they have correctly judged that people aren't all that interested. These stories have not been censored in the usual sense of the word. They are, and have been, out there.

Some of the choices are also odd. Why is World Bank funding for the Israel/West Bank wall big news? The wall itself is well known, and the central issue from every point of view is whether it should be built, not who funds it or how it is funded. It's not like there is some sort of scandal over the funding. The issues are whether or not it is a good security measure for Israel, whether or not it improperly infringes on Arab land, and whether or not it is improper because it would impose "apartheid". None of these issues has anything to do with whether the World Bank is involved in the funding.

The characterization of this wall as the "apartheid wall" also demonstrates clear bias on the part of the Sonoma State people. One can argue about the other issues, that this wall has anything to do with "apartheid" is idiotic. It has no more to do with apartheid than the boundary fences on the borders of most countries, only it is more justified since Israel is under constant terrorist attack. If Israel were interested in apartheid, it would not have allowed hundreds of thousands of Arabs to become citizens and to live all over the country. The people who want to impose apartheid are the Arabs, who can't stand the idea of Jews living anywhere in the Mideast.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...