CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Fun little screengrab from Amazon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fun little screengrab from Amazon

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
This book was recommended to me by a friend who is doing the whole political science thing. The website (projectcensored.org) is great and filled with the type of news that the "liberal media" wouldn't touch with an 80 foot pole.

Anyhow, looked up the book in Amazon:


(underlined for emphasis)

Go figure.
post #2 of 20
I love Project Censored. People like to dismiss it out of hand but the stories it covers are, for the most part, solidly reported. But since these stories don't get picked up by the corporate media they're considered irrelevant and fringy.
post #3 of 20
On other news, Britney Spears is a bad mother, some girl released a sex video and healthcare is the road to stalinist oppression.
post #4 of 20
Here is their latest list:

# 1 No Habeas Corpus for “Any Person”
# 2 Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
# 3 AFRICOM: US Military Control of Africa’s Resources
# 4 Frenzy of Increasingly Destructive Trade Agreements
# 5 Human Traffic Builds US Embassy in Iraq
# 6 Operation FALCON Raids
# 7 Behind Blackwater Inc.
# 8 KIA: The US Neoliberal Invasion of India
# 9 Privatization of America’s Infrastructure
# 10 Vulture Funds Threaten Poor Nations’ Debt Relief
# 11 The Scam of “Reconstruction” in Afghanistan
# 12 Another Massacre in Haiti by UN Troops
# 13 Immigrant Roundups to Gain Cheap Labor for US Corporate Giants
# 14 Impunity for US War Criminals
# 15 Toxic Exposure Can Be Transmitted to Future Generations on a “Second Genetic Code”
# 16 No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11
# 17 Drinking Water Contaminated by Military and Corporations
# 18 Mexico’s Stolen Election
# 19 People’s Movement Challenges Neoliberal Agenda (Free Trade through Central and South America)
# 20 Terror Act Against Animal Activists
# 21 US Seeks WTO Immunity for Illegal Farm Payments
# 22 North Invades Mexico
# 23 Feinstein’s Conflict of Interest in Iraq
# 24 Media Misquotes Threat From Iran’s President
# 25 Who Will Profit from Native Energy?

Full stories and sources here.

But Bill Moyers brings up media ownership in his latest journal, with this excerpt near the end:
Quote:

BILL MOYERS: It's important who owns the press, as we've just seen and heard...but it's also important who decides what is news.

Why wasn't it news last weekend when more than 100,000 people turned out in 11 cities across the country to protest the occupation of Iraq? Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Orlando, Salt Lake City, New Orleans, Jonesborough, Tennessee. But if you blinked while watching the national news, you wouldn't have known it was a story. We found less than two minutes of scattered mentions on television.

Here in Manhattan, thousands of people took to the streets in a steady rain — but the national coverage was even damper than the weather. THE NEW YORK TIMES didn't even run a story at all. And local television coverage was sparse.

Forty years ago opposition to war was a big story. You couldn't miss what happened that October day in 1967 when more than 50,000 protesters moved en masse from the Lincoln Memorial across the Potomac river to the Pentagon...calling on their government to end the war in Vietnam.

This photograph by Bernie Boston of the WASHINGTON STAR circled the globe to become one of the most enduring images of the era.

But this one, too, speaks volumes. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara peering out of his window at thousands upon thousands of his fellow Americans who just wanted to stop the killing.

Among them was sixteen-year old Maurice Isserman, a high school student making his first visit to the nation's capitol. By the end of the day he and other marchers would be tear-gassed and dragged away. Seven hundred would be arrested.

Isserman, forty years later, is a historian teaching at Hamilton College. In the CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION last week I came across his essay reminiscing on that day. Press reports, he remind us, disparaged the protesters despite their solemn rendition of the Star Spangled Banner which they sang, "Wide-open, high notes and all." And despite the Secretary of Defense, above them, breaking down and weeping.

Isserman reminds us that only five months before the Pentagon protest, McNamara, one of the war's architects and defenders, had sent the White House a confidential memo outlining his 'growing doubts' about American involvement in Vietnam.

The march on the Pentagon was a watershed, Maurice Isserman writes, turning dissent into resistance.

Even so the war went on for another seven years...altogether almost 60,000 American soldiers died...and millions of Vietnamese...and America still lost, fleeing the country and leaving Vietnam to the Vietnamese.

In Iraq the war also goes on...despite the protests...despite public sentiment that has turned against it...despite almost 4,000 soldiers dead...another 28,000 wounded...and God knows how many Iraqi civilians dead or injured...and the war goes on.

Look at this story in the WASHINGTON POST. It appeared last weekend as those marchers took to the streets.

Reporter Joshua Partlow told of an American unit fighting in a southwest corner of Baghdad...a once middle class neighborhood now in ruins.

One officer told him: "People are killed here every day, and you don't hear about it. People are kidnapped here every day, and you don't hear about it."

The unit has lost 20 of their comrades during their 14 months at war. "The soldiers, Partlow writes, are tired, bitter and skeptical.

One of them told the journalist: "I don't think this place is worth another soldier's life."

Here at home, if you were watching the Sunday talk shows, you wouldn't know anyone was paying attention to either the soldiers or the protesters. The talk was all about politics, fires and Iran.

And if anyone in high office was weeping over yet another war with no end in sight...we'll have to wait until they write their books to know it.

The protest last weekend came almost exactly five years after Congress had backed the President's rush to war. Now, five years later the Capitol and the country alike seem once again to have their fingers in their ears.
Full transcript is here.

Or you can watch this passage here.
post #5 of 20
Isn't there a big difference between censored and ignored?
post #6 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica
Isn't there a big difference between censored and ignored?
Yes, and I think Cobretti pointed out a while back that these people don't know what "censored" means.

I read a bunch of stuff on that site, and most of it isn't journalism. It's a bunch of people, in many cases crackpots, trying to pass off bunk opinion or conjecture as fact.
post #7 of 20
ElCapitanAmerica, I beg you to watch Moyers's program on media ownership. Please, just watch the whole thing. You can access it here.

You obviously have a right to your opinions, but I beg you to just get an idea about what's going on and why some people find it so alarming.
post #8 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe LeFors
Yes, and I think Cobretti pointed out a while back that these people don't know what "censored" means.

I read a bunch of stuff on that site, and most of it isn't journalism. It's a bunch of people, in many cases crackpots, trying to pass off bunk opinion or conjecture as fact.
Since you have a corner on the truth, I would appreciate if you could enlighten me about where I can find conjecture and bunk opinion on that list. But please make sure you have empirical fact to back up your debunking. thx.
post #9 of 20
I'll try to watch it this week (can't right now), but really, do you believe these are literal examples of censorship by the "corporate" media? Is this "orchestrated", or just ignored?

To me censorship implies somebody in the government or a corporate cabal creating a black list of news articles never to be printed.
post #10 of 20
How can democracy now interviews be considered censored material when they play that show on NPR and in the local public access channels? Also, there's been lots of articles on Blackwater before those interviews, and there's plenty of Blackwater coverage on the mainstream media now.

It's funny, during the Clinton administration you would see "conservatives" making just the exact same accusations ...

On the situation in Haiti, goes back to my original post, is it really just censorship or just a story that the media or you could say the US public has little to no interest in? I know a lot of stuff going on in Latin America that I don't see reported here, but I don't believe it's due to censorship.
post #11 of 20
Many of the stories listed there are of questionable quality, and many don't have a clear distinction between real news and an editorial.
post #12 of 20
Damn right. Blogging is a great breakthrough for something like gadget news, but so far as reporting hard news and facts...the current standards leave a lot to be desired.

Also, unfettered "news" reporting can lead to crap like Loose Change.
post #13 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonvoight's car
And that's where the alternative media still has a long way to go: professionalism.
They've certainly got a high standard to aspire to...


post #14 of 20
Ironically, many of those are very legitimate news items that should be in the news (bribery scandals, congressman abusing pages, polls relating to a presidential candidate, discussions ... however ridiculous ... of the war in Iraq).

That they interview faux celebrities doesn't mean the "censored" news linked to are any more legitimate.
post #15 of 20
I could be wrong, but I think Foley and Jefferson are Republicans, as much as Fox would wish otherwise. Fox's answer-within-the-question chyron is par for Fox's course (lemme guess: yes?), Paris Hilton's adventures are not worthy of being on the news much less being milked all day by CNN, and ABC's slurs are just that; slurs. That isn't news, it's gossip. If you want to convince me that ABC isn't playing silly buggers, why not post the positive results? Why not say that a certain percentage of respondents said X and a certain percentage Y instead of just decreeing X and Y are so as was done. That wasn't an accident.

Quote:
That they interview faux celebrities doesn't mean the "censored" news linked to are any more legitimate.
I think the screengrabs were shown as examples of professionalism in American media. The professionalism bloggers allegedly have yet to reach.
post #16 of 20

Anti-gay chickenhawk Mark Foley is a Republican.


The man pictured is Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich), not William Jefferson (D-La.), who also happens to be African American.
post #17 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
I think the screengrabs were shown as examples of professionalism in American media. The professionalism bloggers allegedly have yet to reach.
Indeed.
post #18 of 20
Or things like this lovely interview, in which our "professional" journalist, even after being reminded that Kucinich's wife has a Master's Degree in international conflict resolution, asks to see her tongue stud.

So yeah, shape up, bloggers!
post #19 of 20
Yeah, I think that sentiment crosses all partisan boundaries.
post #20 of 20
Seconded. Thirded? Either way, she's got the brains to give Brain!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Fun little screengrab from Amazon