Project Censored

[Big D]

Project Censored is a media research group out of Sonoma State University which tracks the news published in independent journals and newsletters. From these, Project Censored compiles an annual list of 25 news stories of social significance that have been overlooked, under-reported or self-censored by the country’s major national news media.

I'm researching some of the stories for a class, and can't believe some of the stories I'm reading...or I can believe them, but wish I didn't have to. Check out the top 25 censored stories of this year...I found the court decision that the media can legally lie (#11 of censored 2005) a bit disturbing.

www.projectcensored.org (http://www.projectcensored.org/)

Any thoughts about this project, or any of the individual articles? I think independent news sources are too far and few between...I applaud this style of journalism.

Edit: Here's a link to the most current 25 articles ~ Project Censored 2005 (http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/index.html)

[shade]

I think independent news sources are too far and few between...I applaud this style of journalism. I would rephrase that to "Independent news sources that are legitimate are too far and few between."

Bleh, this seems like another typical anti-bush "independent" source. Any of those articles would gladly be run by the NYT or LATimes if they were valid.

They even reprint stuff from www.buzzflash.com. #24 has been proven false. In 2003 a couple democrats tried to start a draft in protest of the Iraq war. It failed. There is 0 support for it.

[Big D]

This project has received a considerable amount of funding as I understand it to do a very competent job researching these various stories. I would not discount them just because some of the articles don't refelct your political views...some of these are very possible. How about the other 24?

I would trust this source over any of the major news sources every day of the week...

[dead]

here is a docu about the myth of liberal media
http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/myth_of_the_liberal_media.ram
you need realplayer to see this

[shade]

I would not discount them just because some of the articles don't refelct your political views...some of these are very possible. Some? It is 100% left. It is no different than indymedia, buzzflash, counterpunch, common dreams, gnn, etc. I am sure that Dead loves it.

How about article #1? You of all people know that the rich have gotten richer, and that the poor have increased their incomes too, just at a lower rate. You also know how when you have a lot of money, you can make more faster than someone who is poor and unable to save money to invest in the first place. Heck, you can just click on the income data in my sig.

The rich have gotten richer, but not at the expense of the poor.

"The top 5% is capturing an increasingly greater portion of the pie while the bottom 95% is clearly losing ground, and the highly touted American middle class is fast disappearing."

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3089&sequence=11

It is patently false garbage. I recommend that you dont read it.

[Big D]

How about article #1? You of all people know that the rich have gotten richer, and that the poor have increased their incomes too, just at a lower rate. You also know how when you have a lot of money, you can make more faster than someone who is poor and unable to save money to invest in the first place. Heck, you can just click on the income data in my sig.This is correct in nominal terms, but when you account for inflation, the average wage of the poor has been on a steady decline for the past 2 or 3 decades...and a gap has formed, and is widening. But it is not as horric as this article makes out to be...there is still a healthy middle class that is alive and well. But there are no steps being taken currently to protect that bottom percentage.

I am not in complete agreeance with the article...it is suggesting that individual nations do not specialize to increase output, and that "free trade" is a bad thing. Perhaps the foreign countries need better management of their economies, but that is not the US's fault.

It is always troublesome to read the economic analysis of a person that is not an economist...there are simply too many factors to be considered that are lost upon them.

[puppyroach]

How about article #1? You of all people know that the rich have gotten richer, and that the poor have increased their incomes too, just at a lower rate. You also know how when you have a lot of money, you can make more faster than someone who is poor and unable to save money to invest in the first place. Heck, you can just click on the income data in my sig.

The rich have gotten richer, but not at the expense of the poor.

"The top 5% is capturing an increasingly greater portion of the pie while the bottom 95% is clearly losing ground, and the highly touted American middle class is fast disappearing."

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3089&sequence=11

It is patently false garbage. I recommend that you dont read it.
The rich have gotten richer, on the expense on the poor. They use the advantage of anyone living under low-income circumstances to get a low-payed job with lousy benefits and in many cases, no social security. They also get richer by exploiting other countries, thus earning even more money while they detroy for others.

I belong to the middleclass, and I to am a culprit in this matter, only in a much smaller way. This is so clearly stated in article one on that page. It´s a global fact, but it´s also a local fact, ever so present in America, more so0 than almost any other industrialised country here (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908770.html)

And this is thanks to free trade and free market, no question about it.

And I would recommend everyone to read as much of this as possible, as I would like them to read right-wing propaganda, so that they then can form their own opinion, that is the most democratic way :)

[wils0646]

And this is thanks to free trade and free market, no question about it.

Economic theory, however, shows that free trade is always good for the consumer because they get the lowest price possible when buying goods. Don't throw economic theory out the window.

[puppyroach]

Economic theory, however, shows that free trade is always good for the consumer because they get the lowest price possible when buying goods. Don't throw economic theory out the window.
I totally agree, but when free trade is used on a global scale, without regarding rights of individual countries (as we see the lack of in Asia, where western countries use cheap child labour to produce low cost products), it can become an oppressive way, rather than a liberating one.

And it works on a local scale to, when the workers who produce these products are guaranteed rights, for example by the Union. Otherwise, if you have a poorly supported union, workers rights fly out the window, and they loose social benefits, get to work late hours for low salarys, all for the good of low consumer prices.

I´m not against free trade, but it must exist under some kind of social responsibility, because sadly, alot of companies don´t have the social conscience they should have.

[shade]

This is correct in nominal terms, but when you account for inflation, the average wage of the poor has been on a steady decline for the past 2 or 3 decades...and a gap has forme No, its not true. My numbers in my sig are all in 1997 $.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3089&sequence=11
Its from www.cbo.gov, it is not partisan. It does not even have the Bush numbers yet.

Yes a gap has formed. However, it has not been at the expense of the poor and middle class dissappearing. In fact, the middle class have improved their incomes significantly. The poor are still poor, and will always be poor, but they have a few hundred $ now more than they did earlier. The rich will always get richer. As long as it is not at the expense of those below, I dont see the problem. Raw data, adjusted for inflation, clearly shows that it is not at the expense of the poor. I dont understand why people try to say this, other than that they are simply willing to lie to promote their political agenda.

Again, it is garbage, I suggest you not read it.

[lcstinky]

You of all people know that the rich have gotten richer, and that the poor have increased their incomes too, just at a lower rate. You also know how when you have a lot of money, you can make more faster than someone who is poor and unable to save money to invest in the first place. Heck, you can just click on the income data in my sig.

The rich have gotten richer, but not at the expense of the poor.The povery rate has increased by a quarter since the '70s.

Bleh, this seems like another typical anti-bush "independent" source. Any of those articles would gladly be run by the NYT or LATimes if they were valid.Give me a break. Those papers are part and parcel of the establishment. They may be left of the Wall Street Journal, but they provide a weak alternative, much like Alan Colmes--or John Kerry. They squash stories regularly.

#24 has been proven false. In 2003 a couple democrats tried to start a draft in protest of the Iraq war. It failed. There is 0 support for it.Those bills, Sen. 81 [Sen Fritz Hollings, D - SC] and H.R. 163 [Rep. Charles Rangel, D - NY], are still on the table. Hardly likely to be passed, but to call the story false is disingenuine.

It is patently false garbage. I recommend that you dont read it.This says it all. These stories don't fit in with your dogma, so you'd prefer they just go away.

[Big D]

No, its not true. My numbers in my sig are all in 1997 $.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3089&sequence=11
Its from www.cbo.gov, it is not partisan. It does not even have the Bush numbers yet.I'm not saying this is Bush's fault, or even the Republicans fault...but your income data is expressed in 5 quintiles. It does not properly seperate the poorest segment of society apart from the pack, and you get a skewed result.

Even though the data is expressed this way, it still shows that the bottom 20% have virtually not increased their real wages, and that they own a smaller percentage of total wages than they did before.

If they were broken into smaller groups, you would see the wage pattern of the poor more clearly...

[shade]

".but your income data is expressed in 5 quintiles. It does not properly seperate the poorest segment of society apart from the pack, and you get a skewed result."

5 quintiles. The bottom 20% is by the bottom 20% number of people in the country. The top 20% is by number of people. You sort everyone's income in the country. You then divide the number of people by 5 to get the quintiles. Lets say 100 million wage earners for examples sake. You then count the first 20 million people, and average their incomes. This includes people with incomes of 0, and those on welfare. You count the next 20 million, and the next, and the next. It is in no way skewed. It even breaks down the top 10%, 5% and 1%.

Read the data before you complain about it. It is indisputable.

"The povery rate has increased by a quarter since the '70s."
Amazing! You mean the number of people in the bottom 20% have increased along with the population? You should get an honorary PHD.

"Those bills, Sen. 81 [Sen Fritz Hollings, D - SC] and H.R. 163 [Rep. Charles Rangel, D - NY], are still on the table. Hardly likely to be passed, but to call the story false is disingenuine."
Only because those same people are on the committees and arent willing to remove it. Those who wrote the bills are the only ones who support them. The heads of the committee (republicans) are against the bills and will never even let it come to a vote in the committee itself, much less in the congress.

So to call the rumors of a draft false, is absolutely true. The story is in fact, false. It portrays the draft as some sort of Bush conspiracy. Sorry, the only conspiracy here is "independent" media that hates Bush trying to keep him from getting re-elected.

"This says it all. These stories don't fit in with your dogma, so you'd prefer they just go away."
I have proven them to be factually incorrect with minimal amounts of effort. It has nothing to do with dogma. I have also proven that property tax, sales tax, and a true flat tax are bad too. I guess that is because I just hate conservatives. :rolleyes:

[puppyroach]

"The povery rate has increased by a quarter since the '70s."
Amazing! You mean the number of people in the bottom 20% have increased along with the population? You should get an honorary PHD.
It´s simple math Shade. The lowest quintile describes the people earning the least money in your country, but it doesn´t describe everyone living below poverty level, BUT, the amount of people living under poverty level has increased, therefore they make out a bigger part of the lowest quintile. You don´t need a PHD to understand that, no do you? ;)

[shade]

There are two definitions of people in poverty in the US. One that is commonly cited by democrats, is the bottom 20%. That number ALWAYS increases regardless of quality of life. The other number is if 1/3 of someone's income is spent on food.

[puppyroach]

There are two definitions of people in poverty in the US. One that is commonly cited by democrats, is the bottom 20%. That number ALWAYS increases regardless of quality of life. The other number is if 1/3 of someone's income is spent on food.
Well, if they claim that, they´re wrong. I agree with the later definition you gave, because that is what we use in the rest of the world...:)

[shade]

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03fig03.pdf

Recessions suck. At least this one was a lot more shallow than the one in the 70s. 35.9 million sounds like a big number, but when divided by our population of 293 million, it is only 12.5% of our population.

[lcstinky]

I have proven them to be factually incorrect with minimal amounts of effort. It has nothing to do with dogma. I have also proven that property tax, sales tax, and a true flat tax are bad too. I guess that is because I just hate conservatives. :rolleyes:One. at best, you have proven one of 25.

[puppyroach]

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03fig03.pdf

Recessions suck. At least this one was a lot more shallow than the one in the 70s. 35.9 million sounds like a big number, but when divided by our population of 293 million, it is only 12.5% of our population.
You´re right, it´s the same percentage as in the 70´s, but it´s abit to high to be good. I think Bush should´ve adressed this issue early on in in period, but then again, I think we differ in that you are repuplican and I´m a social democrat...:)

[shade]

One. at best, you have proven one of 25. 2. Draft: Bullshit. Income: Factually, indisputably, 100% utterly false.

And I only tried to debunk 2, making me 2 for 2. I would love to debunk all of them, but frankly I dont have the time to waste on yet another buzzflash piece of shit "independent" media website.

You´re right, it´s the same percentage as in the 70´s, but it´s abit to high to be good. Well, lets consider the fact that the lowest rate of poverty in recorded statistical US history is ~11%. So, relative to 11%, we are 15% higher unemployment, or we are just marginally 1.5% higher unemployment than the lowest ever.