Slashdot Log In
Top 25 Censored Stories of 2007
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat May 26, 2007 07:29 PM
from the read-em-and-lean dept.
from the read-em-and-lean dept.
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'."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Google Admits China Censorship Was Damaging 205 comments
pilsner.urquell writes to let us know about a wide-ranging interview with Google's founders from Davos, Switzerland. Larry Page and Sergey Brin admitted that allowing China to censor its search engine did harm to the company in its Western markets. Quoting the Guardian article: "Asked whether he regretted the decision, Mr. Brin admitted yesterday: 'On a business level, that decision to censor... was a net negative.'" The reporter concludes that Google is unlikely to revise its Chinese censorship policy any time soon.
[+]
Technology: Web Censorship on the Increase 132 comments
mid-devonian writes "Close on the heels of the temporary blocking of YouTube by a Turkish judge, a group of academics has published research showing that Web censorship is on the increase worldwide. As many as two dozen countries are blocking content using a variety of techniques. Distressingly, the most censor-heavy countries (which includes China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Burma and Uzbekistan) seem to be passing on their technologically sophisticated techniques to other areas of the world. 'New censorship techniques include the periodic barring of complete applications, such as China's block on Wikipedia or Pakistan's ban on Google's blogging service, and the use of more advanced technologies such as 'keyword filtering', which is used to track down material by identifying sensitive words.'"
[+]
Your Rights Online: New Australian Laws To Censor Terror DVDs 235 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Within a few weeks, Australia may introduce new laws to censor films and literature deemed by the government to be supportive of terrorism. This is not the first time material has been censored in Australia, which has previously censored films and banned publications, including one titled Defence of the Muslim Lands (censored in mid 2006 by Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock). The proposed laws are aimed to target material such as a DVD by Feiz Mohammad containing some of his past controversial sermons calling for jihad and comparing Jews with pigs. The Office of Film and Literature Classification previously classified this DVD as 'PG', suitable for viewing by anyone under 15 years of age with parental guidance."
[+]
Your Rights Online: Indian Nationalists Forcibly Censor Orkut 360 comments
starkravingmad writes "The Economic Times is running a story on Hindu nationalists in India threatening to wreck internet cafes that don't block parts of Orkut that the vigilantes find offensive. From the article: '"Orkut is used by many destructive elements to spread canards about India, Hindus, our gods and cultural heritage," said Abhijit Phanse, president of Bharatiya Vidyarthi Sena, the student group. "We are gently telling Internet cafe owners that it is their responsibility to see that surfers do not use their facility to carry out such hate campaigns ... Or else, we will have to do that job for them." Last week, dozens of Shiv Sena workers vandalised some Internet centres, saying they were not stopping their customers from accessing Orkut groups involved in sending hate messages.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
An important debating point (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:An important debating point (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW, Most of the stories in the list appeared in the NY Times. So much for censorship...
Parent
Re:An important debating point (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:An important debating point (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:An important debating point (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:An important debating point (Score:5, Interesting)
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!"
Parent
Re:An important debating point (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:An important debating point (Score:5, Funny)
Happy 21st!
Parent
Not worth reading... (Score:5, Insightful)
God, I would like to file a bug report... [xkcd.com]
Re:Not worth reading... (Score:5, Informative)
With respect to jet fuel, I'll quote you directly from the NIST page [nist.gov]:
Parent
The list (Score:5, Informative)
#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
Re:The list (Score:5, Insightful)
The majority of the stories are either "Bush/Cheney/The US/Halliburton is evil" or "OMG panic the environment is in trouble." I'm thinking the real purpose of this list is to say "here's stuff I think is really important but most people don't. Since I don't think it was featured enough, I'll going to just claim it was censored by news networks."
Parent
Re:On balance (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole "x hates America" meme has been used for over 50 years with little justificiation beyond, "X doesn't agree with my reactionary viewpoint."
I've checked your website, and I have to ask, why do you hate America? Because from any objective viewpoint, you hate America. Why is that?
Parent
I say "Screw it" (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Wrong Title (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:wow, just wow (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Parent
Re:wow, just wow (Score:5, Insightful)
You're still asking the wrong question! I THINK you mean to ask, what have the dems done (or not done) that we should consider newsworthy, but which is being glossed over or ignored? The word "censorship" is, by the way, completely incorrect in this context.
As for the dems: I think it's newsworthy that despite campaigning on the promise to rid the congress of corruption and the appearance of any unethical carrying-on, that Pelosi chose to put the congressman from Louisiana, freshly caught with $90k of marked bribe CASH in his freezer, on the homeland security oversight committee. On the same note, I think that it's appalling that right in the middle the fuss about how to try to pressure the administration to pull troops out of Iraq, that her granting of completely absurd add-on pork (spinach subsidies, peanut storage funding, etc) to buy more votes for the doomed-to-be-vetoed-but-still-posturing legislation (written just months after an election during which votes were solicited with promises that there would be no more pork) went widely unexamined in the media. Essentially: the press, which largely supports the dems, stays well away from pointing out the blatant lies and hypocrisy coming from the very party that just swore they'd do no such thing.
Hell, what was one of the biggest promises from Pelosi about the first actions she'd take? Following ALL of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations. Of course, what was the first recommendation they decided to completely ignore? The one that called for reorganizing the defense and intelligence oversight committes in congress... in a way that would loosen some democrat control in those areas. Where's the press coverage of that sort of thing? It's no more "censored" than the stuff that the article's rant is about - it's just about what the press either largely ignores, or finds that their audience will probably ignore.
Parent
Who changed the definition of censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Botch's definition of censorship (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
So, let me see if I get this... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
NJ Transit [nynj.net], PATH train [nynj.net] schedules online
List is VERY hit and miss (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Scare-Mongering Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's examine a few of the problems:
I don't have time to analyze the entire list. But given the obvious deficiencies in some of the listed entries, very good reasons for not covering them extensively in the media, why should I be convinced that the others were censored?
Come on, the MSM is no group of angels, and certainly has an agenda, but this article paints us lefties as a bunch of lunatics out of touch with reality, and so does more harm than good for our cause.
Re:summary of most of them (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:summary of most of them (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait until the Liberals get power in the US and we find that the US follows exactly the same foreign policy as it does now. We'll probably find that similar shady operatives like Cheney are behind the Democrats who also have business interests in which similarly tie in with US foreign policy decisions.
Although these stories are used as political ammunition by Democrats, this has nothing to do with them. There actually is no realistic opposition on the political scene to any of these scandals. Both sides of politics are implicated - although to say there are two sides to the political scene in the US is kind of ironic in itself.
Parent