Top 25 Censored Stories of 2007 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'."
Umm sounds like it was posted by (Score:2, Informative)
Move along, nothing to see here.
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
From TFA: (Score:2, Informative)
Wouldn't you know it; the most important story wasn't even listed!
It all started back when +++ATHSHHSY&#^^# NO CARRIER
Re:Not worth reading... (Score:1, Informative)
Censorhip, new definition (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not worth reading... (Score:5, Informative)
With respect to jet fuel, I'll quote you directly from the NIST page [nist.gov]:
Re:Not worth reading... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Umm sounds like it was posted by (Score:3, Informative)
I've been checking out the BBC, but even they are pretty filtered these days...
Try newspaper and news channel websites around the world - of course, there's the issue of translating them
For Mexico, there's Proyecto 40 [proyecto40.com.mx], El Universal [eluniversal.com.mx] and La Cronica [cronica.com.mx] (right-wing tendency). La Jornada [jornada.unam.mx] has a left-wing tendency. (No subscription needed for any of them). Of course, you can translate most of them via Google Language tools.
Google news is also a nice source for news - the key is finding a proxy for the country of your choice to fool Google (just in case of great firewalls) and/or including it in the url. Example:
http://news.google.com/news?ned=es_mx&topic=w [google.com] gives you world news tailored for Mexico, in spanish.
Hope that helps.
Insanely incredible bias (Score:3, Informative)
It's even internally inconsistent, exposing the bias. For example, #12 criticizes Bush for doing an "about-face" on land mines after Clinton's statements to get rid of them, but they say that research on the new breed of land mine started in 1999 -- under Clinton and before Bush.
In its effort to portray the United States as a renegade land mine loving country, it fails to mention that while we didn't sign the Ottawa treaty, we are a signatory to the land mine portion of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
Re:An important debating point (Score:2, Informative)
Re:not really censored (Score:2, Informative)
Re:An important debating point (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, it mostly does lean left [ucla.edu].
Jeez, guy. Tell us how you really feel. (and then count to ten and take some deep breaths...) (and then put on your tinfoil hat!)
Re:Not worth reading... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, no, they couldn't. That's the problem.
I am a physicist, and have worked with people who have worked with Steve Jones, who describe him as "a very careful guy."
The thing that distinguishes physicists from other people is that we believe, with Lord Kelvin, "when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of science, whatever the matter may be."
Jones is making some legitimate numerical points. It is a little unfortunate that he is mixing an alternative hypothesis in with his critique of the NIST analysis, because the two have nothing to do with each other. But the NIST analysis is clearly badly flawed. If you run the numbers, you find that fire alone is insufficient to raise the temperature of the structural members of any of the three towers to the levels required to cause collapse.
You also find that molten aluminum, even when contaminated with hydrocarbons, does not look like the streams of falling material that were seen.
You also find that the presence of cooled liquid metal, and metal that is still glowing yellow-hot in the debris some weeks later, is inexplicable given the energies available from the burning jet fuel or office materials.
These are all facts. They do not prove anything by themselves, except that we do not understand what happened to the Twin Towers or two WTC Building 7, which suffered a nearly symmetrical collapse after being heavily damaged on one side and burning for seven hours after the planes hit the adjacent towers.
So even though you can wave your hands and say, "It seems plausible that the steel might be weakened due to fire..." the undisputed fact is that when you behave as a scientist you find that the numbers don't add up. This is what we do, and this is what all the technology you use depends on. Remember, your GPS wouldn't work if 19th century astronomers had shrugged and said, "Well, it's true that the orbit or Mercury precesses at a higher-than-expected rate, but it's probably just due to some funny mass distribution in the sun. Ok, let's go for a beer."
Scientists do not quit until the numbers add up. There is no doubt that with regard to the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 on 9/11 the numbers do not add up.