Terribly Biased Reporting.
Sep. 8th, 2004 02:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
swestrupI just came across a mention on Slashdot of Project Censored which claims that its mission is "to educate people about the role of independent journalism in a democratic society and to tell The News That Didn't Make the News and why." This all sounds laudable enough, as most of the world is well aware of how badly censored American media is. Canadian media is somewhat better, but only somewhat.
That said, a quick look at their list of "Censored" stories for 2005 shows a very strong bias in their reporting. (I also find it fascinating that they've declared 2004 to be already over, while there's still a full third of it left.) If you look at the individual articles, you see deceptive reporting practices, exactly the sort of thing they are supposedly railing against.
Lets take one example. In the #1 story in their list "Wealth Inequality in 21st Century Threatens Economy and Democracy", they are beating a dead horse that I already discussed in one of my essays. The only reasons to promote their particular point of view is either 1) Ignorance (willful or otherwise) of economic facts, or 2) A desire to deceive. I was curious as to which it was, so I started reading. I had my answer by the third paragraph, which I will quote verbatim, to save you the effort of looking it up:
The blatant deception here clearly indicates that its the second case If its not immediately obvious to you, sentence #1 states that the poor are getting richer, while sentence #2 pretends to disagree but does nothing of the kind! Sentence #2 only says that the percentage of the total worlds wealth controlled by the poor is decreasing. This actually supports the conention in the first sentence (as explained in my essay), but is worded in such a way as to seem to be a refutation of it. This is not something that can happen by accident. Anyone who has access to the numbers needed to generate sentences #1 and #2 has all the data they need to see the actual increase in the wealth of the poor. Instead, they decided to use deceptive reporting practices to attempt to fool their readers.
Since this is the #1 article on a website supposedly dedicated to bringing truth back into journalism, I can only conclude that the entire website is dedicated to the dissemination of a particular brand of American "Liberal" propaganda.
That said, a quick look at their list of "Censored" stories for 2005 shows a very strong bias in their reporting. (I also find it fascinating that they've declared 2004 to be already over, while there's still a full third of it left.) If you look at the individual articles, you see deceptive reporting practices, exactly the sort of thing they are supposedly railing against.
Lets take one example. In the #1 story in their list "Wealth Inequality in 21st Century Threatens Economy and Democracy", they are beating a dead horse that I already discussed in one of my essays. The only reasons to promote their particular point of view is either 1) Ignorance (willful or otherwise) of economic facts, or 2) A desire to deceive. I was curious as to which it was, so I started reading. I had my answer by the third paragraph, which I will quote verbatim, to save you the effort of looking it up:
During the short boom of the late 1990s, conservative analysts asserted that, yes, the gap between rich and poor was growing, but that incomes for the poor were still increasing over previous levels. Today most economists, regardless of their political persuasion, agree that the data over the last 25 to 30 years is unequivocal. 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.
The blatant deception here clearly indicates that its the second case If its not immediately obvious to you, sentence #1 states that the poor are getting richer, while sentence #2 pretends to disagree but does nothing of the kind! Sentence #2 only says that the percentage of the total worlds wealth controlled by the poor is decreasing. This actually supports the conention in the first sentence (as explained in my essay), but is worded in such a way as to seem to be a refutation of it. This is not something that can happen by accident. Anyone who has access to the numbers needed to generate sentences #1 and #2 has all the data they need to see the actual increase in the wealth of the poor. Instead, they decided to use deceptive reporting practices to attempt to fool their readers.
Since this is the #1 article on a website supposedly dedicated to bringing truth back into journalism, I can only conclude that the entire website is dedicated to the dissemination of a particular brand of American "Liberal" propaganda.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-09 09:29 pm (UTC)Of course, to answer that annoying little man who tends
to pop up the first time he hears this and says "But
wasn't freeing the slaves taking property away from its
owners?", I'd like to point out the principle of
equality for all persons under the law and to emphasize
consistency. Also, the threat of initiation of direct
injury is on an equal status with its commission. It
might also help to clarify what constitutes property --
something that is owned. This makes my EP:
Initiation of threats or the commission of direct
injury against a person must be consistently prohibited
-- where direct injury means taking of property or
bodily harm or coercion, and property includes monetary
property, real estate, moveable items, the terms of
voluntary contracts, intellectual property, and an
individual's record of his achievements (if I didn't
miss anything).
Tech workers know that a little redundancy improves
communication -- and the core statement is still quite
concise.
This rules out fraud, for example, and slavery, since
slavery occurs when some people have property rights
and others do not. Valid corporate rights are also
protected, since, after all, corporations are owned by
individual people.
Since all laws are based on the threat of bodily
coercion against some individual (that's what it boils
down to -- think about it), the above means that the
proper domain of law is only the area in which threats
or the commission of direct injury against a person has
already been initiated. The EP rules out taxation just
like it rules out "protection" extorted by gangs, of
any name.
-Jim