I love this site. Chris will probably hate it. Go there
4 replies on “Project Censored”
Cool Site!
Like the ICC and Kyoto treaty weren’t in any news outlets. Yep, never heard of them! The press absolutely didn’t spend any time discussing them, not at all!
ICC:
I just want to bring to your attention a document that was submitted with the signature of President Clinton on December 31, 2000, in which President Clinton himself, on the ICC, referred to it as a treaty with significant flaws. And he went on to state, "The United States should have the chance to observe and assess the function of the court over time, before choosing to become subject to its jurisdiction. Given these concerns, I will not and do not recommend that my successor submit the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied."
Kyoto:
During the summer of 1997, the Senate voted 95 to 0 to assert its
opposition to the Kyoto treaty on grounds that it endangers the U.S. economy and spares
developing countries from constraints imposed on developed nations.
(This was under Clinton). But, yes, please, let’s call it Bush’s fault, shall we? And pretend that it’s CENSORED NEWS that *he* didn’t like the treaty.
It amazes me the number of times and ways that people complain about the "Bush Junta" censoring news. Yet, if they were controlling the media so well, how are these complaints still public?
I think the proper term would be under-reported. Of course, the site doesn’t exactly call itself Project Underreported, does it….
So, looking at your response, you have criticism about 1 item? or is this a placeholder for much larger criticisms against the rest?
There is a HUGE difference between not reporting something because you have an ethical reason not to (Iraq: you don’t report so people won’t get killed) and because there is some official effort to quell or quash discussion of it. CNN could have aired the stories of its kidnapped people; they chose not to do so. It wasn’t the government ….oh, I’m getting tired head.
Cool Site!
Like the ICC and Kyoto treaty weren’t in any news outlets. Yep, never heard of them! The press absolutely didn’t spend any time discussing them, not at all!
ICC:
I just want to bring to your attention a document that was submitted with the signature of President Clinton on December 31, 2000, in which President Clinton himself, on the ICC, referred to it as a treaty with significant flaws. And he went on to state, "The United States should have the chance to observe and assess the function of the court over time, before choosing to become subject to its jurisdiction. Given these concerns, I will not and do not recommend that my successor submit the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied."
Kyoto:
During the summer of 1997, the Senate voted 95 to 0 to assert its
opposition to the Kyoto treaty on grounds that it endangers the U.S. economy and spares
developing countries from constraints imposed on developed nations.
(This was under Clinton). But, yes, please, let’s call it Bush’s fault, shall we? And pretend that it’s CENSORED NEWS that *he* didn’t like the treaty.
It amazes me the number of times and ways that people complain about the "Bush Junta" censoring news. Yet, if they were controlling the media so well, how are these complaints still public?
Here’s what real censorship is:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1599076.php
I think the proper term would be under-reported. Of course, the site doesn’t exactly call itself Project Underreported, does it….
So, looking at your response, you have criticism about 1 item? or is this a placeholder for much larger criticisms against the rest?
There is a HUGE difference between not reporting something because you have an ethical reason not to (Iraq: you don’t report so people won’t get killed) and because there is some official effort to quell or quash discussion of it. CNN could have aired the stories of its kidnapped people; they chose not to do so. It wasn’t the government ….oh, I’m getting tired head.