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'."
An important debating point (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:An important debating point (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
So, nerds unite, less large corporations stop grandmothers from looking at the latest Sierra Club newsletter.
On balance (Score:1, Interesting)
Does anyone else out there have the feeling that
Unspeakable Brutal Murder not reported and why... (Score:1, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:summary of most of them (Score:2, Interesting)
Pretty much. They would be less full of shit if they bothered to post a token non-left wing censored story.
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.
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.
Mainstream media like simple, scary issues (Score:4, Interesting)
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."
Censorship Doesn't Work - Lohan,Spears -Paris Work (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:An important debating point (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not worth reading... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:An important debating point (Score:3, Interesting)
Can you please provide some corroboration to this statement?
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.
I understand this, given that he owns Fox News, but my impression is that Fox News is an outlier in this regard.
Re:An important debating point (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, not all information will be hard to access. Those who have the money to pay for extra bandwidth will have no problem getting their message out to the public. We will all rest easier knowing that Rupert Murdoch and rich Saudi extremists will be able to buy the internet at last.
Re:An important debating point (Score:4, Interesting)
People's behavior is not linear. It's non-linear. There are many instances of positive feedback phenomena, so you can't use a simplistic cause/effect model. If people were given more information about civil rights curtailment, they'd be more interested. Right now it's foreign to their experience.
Re: Steel and Jet Fuel (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no reason to believe the assumptions underlying their models, and therefore, no reason to believe its output, that the impact lead to total collapse. Obviously, the building *did* collapse, but given that they were tasked to find out *why* means that the anthropic principle does not save their model. By succumbing to laziness, they completely ignore other causes or possible contributing circumstances:
1) Were there unexpected failures of design redundancies and over-engineering? Why did the design models fail? How do they need to be corrected?
2) Were there substandard materials or technologies present in the building? Were these materials properly installed and inspected? (FEMA did bring to light issues with the foam, but even they did not believe it was a major contributor) Who might have been responsible? How can the system be corrected to prevent this?
3) Did materials or technologies age, weather, or corrode in an unexpected fashion? Were they recently inspected? What does this mean for new building structures? (debris could have been examined for signs of corrosion or other problems)
4) Are there signs of other kinds of sabotage beside the obvious? Did the attackers take steps to maximize damage? (e.g. a basement bomb timed to coincide roughly with the impact, sabotaging fire-suppression systems, etc.)
These are not "extra credit" questions. They go to the core of what NIST was tasked to do and are largely unanswered. In many cases, the answer would have been "no," but clearly something had to be "yes." The building was designed with enough over-engineering, for instance, that the trusses could have magically disappeared and the building(s) should have supported itself between the core, the outer frame, and the cross ties. NIST only supposes that some load bearing members were materially weakened. The core itself should have stood no matter what the rest of the building did. Something caused the building and/or design to fail; it was their job to investigate.
As an aside, there is a barn in a pasture near here that has been abandoned for quite a while. It is a two story oak structure. The external load bearing members are completely rotted. They don't even touch the foundation any more. The entire barn is supported by a one-story interior wall which holds up the sills for the second floor. The sills, in turn, hold up the planking, the second floor walls, the roof, and hold the first floor suspended above the ground. It's been like that for years apparently. I had bets that it was going to fall this winter, but it is still there. It is amazing what a little over-engineering will do.