Censored?
"Project Censored" has a list of stories it believes have been censored by the major news media. My only objection is to the word "censored," which implies some sort of forcible hiding of truth, rather than simple lack of interest.
Otherwise, I'm all for this sort of thing, from any political viewpoint. People with common sense can make up their own minds, and we don't always need the news media to tell us what's important. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Isn't that what makes blogs great?
Speaking of which, Mike Silverman has his own list of censored stories. Well, they're no more "censored" than the first list, but they're just as interesting.
Amusing. Two or three of the "censored" stories might not have been pure anti-US screed, according to thier titles.
These stories (based on the few that I read) appear to have been "censored" because they are pure "black helicopter" BUNK.
These people have no credibility whatsoever.
is this story from the professor dude from San Jose St U. or some other California school? Like Gary said, most of the stories he claims were censored are pure, unadulterated, junk news. I think a few years back he tried real hard to claim that crack in the streets was a CIA plot to "keep the black man down", and other such nonsensical stories. However, if one is from the hard left, anyone who isnt wildly talking about, or publishing some off the wall, anti-American story, even if it is pure poppycock, is engaging in censorship!!! These guys take their directions from Chomsky, and his theory (if you want to call it that), of the so-called problem of "manufactured consent"!!!
Dean, these "censored" stories lists these people put out are always the most ridiculous Leftist conspiracy nonsense. There are always two categories: stories that were ignored because only the looniest think them significant and stories ignored because they better fit an X-Files episode.
They are nuts.
The DU story is absolute nonsense. The "story" about "busting" treaties is crap too, claiming that it was illegal for President Bush to withdraw from the ABM treaty which shows how ignorant they are of constitutional law. It goes on and on.
By some standards, labeling the stories "crap" in comments on a blog is "censorship." When did our schools stop teaching that words mean things?
I agree with McGhee's (implicit) point. It is important to keep word meanings tight and accurate. So, how about "suppressed" instead of "censored," in this context?
Meanwhile...are each of you planning to be pro-active with the local school board about returning S. I. Hayakawa to the classroom?
Even "suppressed" is too strong. This list is just whining about the real world not taking them (the list makers, not the stories ) seriously.