Project Censored and top censored stories

[me]

If anyone really, really reads the Internet the idea of a liberal media is totally rubish. Ask someone that says that to name the 5 large media companies and they don't know crap. One is Disney that owns ABC. No liberal bias there. One is NewsCorp owned by Rupert Murdock the self-avowed conservative that brings us Faux News or Fox if you are not widely read on the Internet. General Electric owns NBC and they sure are not a bunch of Liberals. Viacom that owns CBS has no liberal agenda and AOL whose Newsweek did a sleeper job on the economy this week surely is not liberal. Clear Channel that owns 1200 radio stations and bashed the Dixie Chicks is so conservative it is sickening.

But really the media is just complicit with the Nazis and their policies because they want growth and favorable regulations and free use of the public airwaves. That is why these Censored stories will suprize you. The media has no interest in showing you reality.

Anyone want to talk about the first one on the list of these stories as listed by Project Censored- www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Currents/Content?oid=oid:49247

[Redneck]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Commonsense]

Nazis? Where did Nazis come into this? And what is your message about, anyway? I read it three times. I'm not stupid, but it doesn't make much sense.

[Nazi is just short 4 fascist]

I am saying that the idea of a liberal press is ludicrous. The press should have points of view from all sides and in Canada to qualify as a newspaper that does not need to collect sales tax, they have to dedicate one-fourth of their content to editorial opinions.

Anyway, the media is totally complicit in advancing the government cause that now represents the corporate interest of America instead of the the public good. We are a fascist nation or Nazis for short. I am not making this up as it is out their on the web and if you read much at all, you should know what I meant.

Read the examples in number 6 that concerns a controlled media in this article on the 14 points of fascism- www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

[surfrgirl338]

Well, I went and started to read this #14 and all I can say is.............. GET OVER IT!!!!!!!
Why is it all you want to do is name call and fight? Instead of trying to make a coherent argument for your favorite Democrat. My Good Lord! I would think that by now you people would be trying to move on and regain the white house but you certainly are not going to do it the way you are going about it.
Quit being so childish and sending links to *who knows what/who wrote these articles. I would only listen to main stream *biased* media. I think that I am smart enough to sift through most of the BS and get a grain of truth from it.
Media is not biased you say, what about Dan Rather (for one) what about Hollywood for another. They are all socialistic fops.
As for your (at present) front running canidate Sen. Dean? I am NOT for same sex marriage, I am NOT for partial birth abortion, and I am NOT for tucking tail and running when the going gets tough. He stands four square behind all of these things and FOR most every thing I am against. So what else (besides name calling and nonie-nonie-nonies do you have?

[Diogenes]

Surfgirl,

It is not a matter of being "smart enough" to see the truth through the news stories you get on major networks. I'm not saying there is any kind of conspiracy here, and I think it's a bit silly to start talking about Nazis and Fascists.

But you are only told what the media wants you to hear if you get your news through the major TV networks. You can't possibly get to the truth if all you have to work with is propaganda. Try the BBC website. They have been consistently objective. They do not answer to any government or to any sponsors. You will get news there that you will *never* hear in this country. Why don't you get it here? Because it doesn't necessarily serve the interests of the people in power here.

The press in this country is definitely not free. If it were, you would hear many conflicting opinions, all reported objectively and given equal weight. The press here tells you what to think, directly and subtly. And none of us needs that.

[surfrgirl338]

Diogenes, if you are searching for the truth and depending on the BBC, in my estimation they are as propaganda laden as Al-Jazeera.So continue searching. I will take the good old home grown propaganda that we are fed over here. Yes, I do realize that we are fed just as much pap as europe is but I just believe that after I have seen what is going on, how my life and others around me are affected, the laws that are being passed, the leadership that we have had, the leadership that we now have, the struggle that is being made to right the skewed world we find our selves in, in short the confidence that the present president instills in me, I think unless things go really, really bad I will stand behind this man.
I believe that I can listen to Dan Rather and Fox News and somewhere in the middle come up with at least a grain of truth, get a feel for what is really going on. At least thats what I have been doing so far and am fairly well satisfied that while I do not agree 100% with Pres. Bush I sure do not agree with the Democrats either.
So search on Diogenes and when you find your man please let me know??

[Diogenes]

Surfgirl, I did not say that I rely exclusively on the BBC for news. What I did say - and what you apparently didn't bother to think about - is that the BBC doesn't answer to any sponsor or even their own government. This makes them a lot more impartial than our news services could ever hope to be. And that makes them a better source of news than what we get on our televisions.

What you and the rest of the brainwashed American public are getting are maybe three or four slants on the same packs of lies told to you every day and night. There is no way anyone could find the truth from that input. The truth is not there to find.

However, if you want to believe you are making up your own mind based on facts, there is nothing I or anyone else can or should do to disabuse you of that notion.

I will say that the world is much bigger than you know from your limited experience.

[surfrgirl338]

It amazes me that people call me *stupid,* *brain washed,* *inexperienced,* and all this from a post I wrote that (they) seemed not to have bothered to read or give any thought to.
QUOTE:I believe that I can listen to Dan Rather and Fox News and somewhere in the middle come up with at least a grain of truth, get a feel for what is really going on.END QUOTE,
This does not say FACTS. Their are no FACTS to be had today in the media. Only the spin they put on it.
QUOTE:BBC, in my estimation they are as propaganda laden as Al-Jazeera. END QUOTE
You are right they are responsible to NOONE not even the public just THEIR own spin, and God knows the british hate us almost as much as the Arabs.
QUOTE:What you and the rest of the brainwashed American public END QUOTE
There it is again. The typical Democratic come back. Anyone that doesn't believe as you do is brainwashed/dead, stupid, ignorant and any other names you want to fling around. I am sure that you feel you are right but I have that same right and I have yet to call you a name. I couldn't even if I wanted to you have so many. Why not pick one and stick with it?

[Redneck]

I thank God for freedom of the press, unhampered by government control.
It is a blessing which is non existent in a lot of countries.

But with freedom comes responsibility, and in the case of the media this
should constitute fairness, telling both sides of the story. Opinion
and agenda driven journalism should be relegated to the editorial page.

The American people need to know the truth, the whole truth, which means
reporting things which go outside the boundaries of personal politics.
Even if it makes the other side look good once in a while.
I’m glad to see Fox News come on line, at least they usually give both
sides of the story. They are often accused of being a conservative
network but the truth of the matter is that this nation has not heard TV
coverage which has not been tilted to the left in so long that when they
do get fair and balanced coverage to some liberals it seems conservative.

For instance, the other night one of their correspondents interviewed
some of the anti - war protesters asking them what the alternative to
going to war with Iraq would be. The standard answer was,”I don’t know”.

So here are a bunch of young people out in the street demonstrating
against a war and they don’t even know why. Does this make any sense
and why didn’t Peter Jennings and company talk to some of these people?

And I don’t mean that Fox is perfect but they sure report more of the
news than the other channels do.

And why doesn’t the media tell the truth about abortion, that it is
profit driven and why can’t they show a partial birth abortion? Too
gruesome you say? Well just how gruesome is it for the baby who is
being cruelly murdered?

And why do they try to pillory a man like Billy Graham who has devoted
every hour of his adult life to good works, by quoting an old statement
which was taken out of context concerning Jews. Billy Graham loves the
Jews and Israel, the media knows that but they just don’t care. I think
that’s not telling the whole story, irresponsible journalism.

And what about coverage of the Islamic prisoners in Guantanamo Bay? Why
don’t they tell the military’s side of that story?

And why do they follow Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton around like loyal
puppy dogs ignoring Jackson’s shady financial dealings and Sharpton’s
propensity for causing violence?

And why do they love to tell us bad news about the economy when there’s
also good things happening?

I know the reason why. The network news and many of the large
newspapers in this country have a liberal political agenda and they know
that if the news is presented fairly that you’ll be less likely to
swallow their line and go along with their thinking.

The front page of a newspaper should not look like the editorial page.
Think about it, do you ever wonder why The Washington Post and the New
York Times seldom have anything good to say about President Bush?
Doesn’t he ever do anything which deserves praise?

And do you ever wonder why they never say anything bad about Hillary
Clinton? Doesn’t she do something once in a while which deserves
criticism?

Think about the kind of America these people are pushing for and be
extremely careful how much of their coverage you believe.

Is it the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

[surfrgirl338]

Vey well put Redneck! Bravo!! You ask some very good questions. I agree that there are always two sides to every story and we usually only get one. I am all for this two sided party. So long as the two sides on on opposing teams and not on the same side.
I think both parties have done things that deserve praise and both have deserved criticisim but seems the liberals only want their side out there. If you don't believe, buy into their side then they resort to name calling. Sure makes me glad that I am an independent.