Join 3,427 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


*Censored*
October 10, 2008 7:47 AM   Subscribe

Project Censored 2009 brings you 25 stories censored this past year. This essay by Amanda Witherall introduces Project Censored as well as summarizes the top 10 stories selected.

this one's for MeFi, I won't mention favourites by name in case they're being watched ;p
posted by infini (65 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite

 
Pedantic obsession with the precise definition of "censorship" is also a form of censorship.
posted by DU at 7:52 AM on October 10, 2008


1- I guess that makes me pedantic. 2- I was in Infraguard in Cleveland. It mostly involved sitting around a crappy hotel conference room in Akron and watching Powerpoint slides. I certainly didn't get any new lethal powers. 3- So Bush made Spitzer sleep with the hookers? 4- I'm sure I'd heard of at least a third of these. Not very effective censorship.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 8:15 AM on October 10, 2008


In that case:

Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor.
posted by swift at 8:16 AM on October 10, 2008


That is, just because you didn't carry my story, which I know to be true, and possibly something those in power would not want widely known, doesn't mean I am being censored.
posted by swift at 8:18 AM on October 10, 2008


Pedantic obsession with the precise definition of "censorship" is also a form of censorship.

That is, just because you didn't carry my story, which I know to be true, and possibly something those in power would not want widely known, doesn't mean I am being censored.

aaaaaannnnnd we're off!
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:23 AM on October 10, 2008 [3 favorites]


Some of these stories should really be reported and discussed more publicly. But I don't know if it's really that important to know that conspiracy nutjobs sit in the japanese parliament.
posted by kolophon at 8:29 AM on October 10, 2008


3- So Bush made Spitzer sleep with the hookers?

Everybody could be brought up on something. In this case, executives having super sekrit relations with under-the-table folks is probably pretty common. Like when you sped on your way to work this morning. You broke the law. Like a ton of things in our society, that are selectively enforced, that people do every day. 35 mph on this road with nobody on it, the same limit it was decades ago when cars were much safer. Regulations for businesses that every business breaks in some form or other. This book, On The Take, is a great read to follow the idea that the rules are set in a manner that everyone breaks them from time to time, and then those rules can be selectively enforced as needed.
posted by cashman at 8:30 AM on October 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


This is has to be the most misnamed list in modern times. None of these stories were censored because the criteria to nominate a story is that it had to be previously published -- so it's Project Under-reported or Project What Progressives Find to be Under-reported.

But even then, a lot of these stories have made headlines over the years, particularly #15 -- these stories just never managed to cause a mass outrage.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 8:32 AM on October 10, 2008 [4 favorites]


Meanwhile, Project Sensored 2009 measures plates of beans.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:32 AM on October 10, 2008


I have a story that should have been on that list, but I can't tell you about it.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:39 AM on October 10, 2008


Read this while you can people, one of the mods is bound to come in and supercensor it any moment now.
posted by ghost of a past number at 8:41 AM on October 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Pedantic obsession with the precise definition of "censorship" with the effect of redirecting discussion from the stories themselves is also a form of censorship.

FTFM
posted by DU at 8:42 AM on October 10, 2008 [3 favorites]


Is it censorship to consciously ignore a story? In a way, I find conscious ignorance a far more frightening idea. The enemy becomes less a small cabal of nefarious men-in-black and more an entire class of smug people-in-gray.
posted by philip-random at 8:48 AM on October 10, 2008


flagged as forbidden
posted by fleetmouse at 8:49 AM on October 10, 2008


Then you know what, DU, the fucknuts behind this should have known fine well that any discussion of their list would immediately descend into WTF-this-isn't-censorship-it's-disinterest and should have named it unknown stories or forgotten stories or overlooked or something else instead of reaching for the scare words.
posted by bonaldi at 9:03 AM on October 10, 2008


So Bush made Spitzer sleep with the hookers?

Bruno Tattaglia made Luca Brasi sleep with the fishes.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:08 AM on October 10, 2008


Wow, nothing about the iPhone NDA? Come on, that's way bigger than the Spitzer story.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:09 AM on October 10, 2008


The idea that this is censorship begs the question that many of these stories are non-starters to begin with.

Eliot Spitzer? Yeah, vocal critic + complete dumbass = not a story.

NATO considers first strike option? That's been official policy from the day NATO was conceived, and no secret. Clearly its inappropriate to use against terrorism. Sounds like one of those DARPA-esque hypothetical thought problems run amok - one that doesn't deserve any air time.

On a side note, I see that "climate change" is one of the challenges that NATO is factoring in their scenario - is nuclear winter a solution to global warming?

Some of the other stuff is clearly worrisome. If the current administration had not already proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that they fully intend to abuse the law, I would dismiss these stories as fear-mongering. That isn't the case - these guys are monsters.
posted by Xoebe at 9:09 AM on October 10, 2008


Then you know what, DU, the fucknuts behind this should have known fine well that any discussion of their list would immediately descend into WTF-this-isn't-censorship-it's-disinterest and should have named it unknown stories or forgotten stories or overlooked or something else instead of reaching for the scare words.

That's all very well, but seriously, what do you expect from a bunch of fucknuts?
posted by philip-random at 9:11 AM on October 10, 2008


what do you expect from a bunch of fucknuts?

Fucknut butter and jelly sammiches?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:17 AM on October 10, 2008 [3 favorites]


$700bn?
posted by bonaldi at 9:17 AM on October 10, 2008


aaaaaannnnnd we're off!

But I haven't weighed in yet! My horse is stuck at the starting gate!

Whatever, I've had this argument before. What this guy said.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:17 AM on October 10, 2008


Like this one -- "13. Tracking Billions of Dollars Lost in Iraq."

Is it really a case of censorship when there's photos of the money and Congressional hearings?
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:22 AM on October 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Underreported? Ignored? Things we didn't care enough about?

I hate stripping a good word of its true meaning.
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 9:39 AM on October 10, 2008




From #25:

Timing suggests that Spitzer was likely a target of a White House and Wall Street operation to silence one of its most dangerous and vocal critics of their handling of the current financial market crisis.


This sort of argument does not invite people to take you seriously.
posted by jason's_planet at 10:19 AM on October 10, 2008


Eliot Spitzer? Yeah, vocal critic + complete dumbass = not a story.

Really?

On February 14, the Washington Post published an editorial by Spitzer titled, “Predatory Lenders’ Partner in Crime: How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers,” which charged, “Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.”

In this editorial, Spitzer explained:

"The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). ...

But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government’s actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.”


The editorial appeared the day after Spitzer’s ill-fated rendezvous with the prostitute at the Mayflower Hotel. With that article, some Washington insiders believe, Spitzer signed his own political death warrant.


Fool or tool, Xoebe?
posted by jamjam at 10:20 AM on October 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


Whine whine. You used the word "censored." I will now direct all my outrage toward your slight exaggeration instead of a whole bunch of actual shit that sucks but that I don't know how to do anything about. Your communications strategy for getting ten important stories to a wider audience annoys me so I'm not going to talk about the content at all.
posted by salvia at 10:21 AM on October 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Slight exaggeration? It's a fundamental misuse. Accuracy matters, especially if you're trying to expose evil and right wrongs. If you can't use a fairly clear word such as "censorship" correctly, where else will you fudge the language to help push your agenda?
posted by bonaldi at 10:37 AM on October 10, 2008 [5 favorites]


>>3- So Bush made Spitzer sleep with the hookers?

No, but at least Spitzer was paying someone to fuck them. BushCo fucks us, and we pay.

I'm not trying to excuse cheating or sexual malfeasance, because it can't be done, but seriously, which is worse, getting a hooker, or helping destroy the entire foundation of the country? These litany of crap that BushCo has done or aided these past 8 years is longer than my arm. War under false pretenses and the huge number of deaths resulting, treasonous outing of a CIA operative, bungled response to Katrina, Torture, Ignoring the Constitution, gutting the Bill of Rights, presiding over the current economic meltdown, declaring Bin Laden enemy #1 and then "not thinking about him much". It goes on and on.

I mean, what a fucking joke.
posted by SaintCynr at 10:42 AM on October 10, 2008


"This" litany.
posted by SaintCynr at 10:43 AM on October 10, 2008


Slight exaggeration? It's a fundamental misuse. Accuracy matters, especially if you're trying to expose evil and right wrongs. If you can't use a fairly clear word such as "censorship" correctly, where else will you fudge the language to help push your agenda?

That's a really important point, put better than I could. I read the articles, and they are interesting, but far from censored, since I had already heard of most of them. And I am far from a news junkie.

The problem with deliberately misusing the word "censored" is that it calls into question the accuracy and veracity of everything that follows.

They do themselves no favors this way.
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 10:47 AM on October 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


But of course, you don't need to "censor" anything when the populace doesn't give a damn about their own country, and are too ignorant or self-absorbed to care even when the truth is put right in front of them.

Hey, did you hear that they killedZOMG I HAVE TO GET THE NEW IPHONE!
posted by SaintCynr at 10:49 AM on October 10, 2008


I refer the honourable infini to the answer I gave twelve months ago.
posted by athenian at 11:11 AM on October 10, 2008


link athenian ?
posted by infini at 12:08 PM on October 10, 2008


The problem with deliberately misusing the word "censored" is that it calls into question the accuracy and veracity of everything that follows.

Creators of the project are far left, Amanda Witherall got her start writing for the red-loving SF Bay Guardian, so from their perspective Big Corporate Media actively suppress the Big Story to keep us proletariat ignorant of the Big Shaft.

If a story with stretched conclusions and innuendos of unsubstantiated conspiracy doesn't gain traction, it must have been suppressed!
posted by MiltonRandKalman at 12:18 PM on October 10, 2008


Ok, but the real question is why the hell are these the most censored stories of 2009? Did I miss a year again?
posted by threeturtles at 12:19 PM on October 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


It's like Z Magazine in the 80s!
posted by grubi at 12:41 PM on October 10, 2008


Flagged for ruining the next 25 front page posts. Jerk.
posted by rokusan at 1:17 PM on October 10, 2008


The problem with deliberately misusing the word "censored" is that it calls into question the accuracy and veracity of everything that follows.

Okay, okay, relax. No need to form a lynch mob.
posted by rokusan at 1:17 PM on October 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


i seem to have a downcycle trend on my fpp's. hmmm. must.do.something.fluffy.and.nice
posted by infini at 1:54 PM on October 10, 2008


“ In an effort to prevent people from becoming “prone to” radicalization, this preemptive measure of policing thought specifically identifies the Internet as a tool of radicalization”

Er...seems to have been preemptively 1984ing. I mean, where do you go with that?
‘Yeah, we’re going to police thought. We’re the thought police. And Big Brother will be watching you all the time. Just like 1984. And the Nazis. So?’

‘Well, that’s just like!...uh...that’s...er...’*scratches head*
posted by Smedleyman at 2:24 PM on October 10, 2008


Regarding the objections to "censored," it's a shame we don't have a word for "hiding important news in the back pages and then, if anyone notices, claiming that's just how the free press works."

Okay, there's "MSM." But would folks really be happy if Project Censored was called Project Buried By Corporate Media?
posted by shetterly at 2:50 PM on October 10, 2008


"Without censorship things can get terribly confused in the public mind." -General William Westmoreland, during the war in Viet Nam.
posted by Bitter soylent at 2:50 PM on October 10, 2008


It is by no means a misnomer to call these stories censored.

Almost all non-local stories in a newspaper or on a newscast appeared somewhere else first. When they come across an editor's desk, he or she must decide whether or not they should be included in the product the editor is responsible for. If the editor chooses not to include them even though the editor thinks them interesting and believes they would be more appealing to audiences than the stories which are chosen, that is censorship without question.

I think these stories are riveting and that my feelings about them would be widely shared if they were better known, and that is prima facie evidence of censorship if my judgment of their level of interest is anywhere near correct.

The way some of you are using the term, nothing could ever be considered censored if it appeared in any public medium whatsoever, which would leave us in the interesting position of discussing censorship in the entire absence of any example of it, for as soon as anyone named a censored story in this public forum, it would be disqualified from further discussion.
posted by jamjam at 4:48 PM on October 10, 2008


i seem to have a downcycle trend on my fpp's. hmmm. must.do.something.fluffy.and.nice

Just don't link to something that's poorly titled. People hate that.

If you can't use a fairly clear word such as "censorship" correctly, where else will you fudge the language to help push your agenda?

Okay, you have convinced me to not even open the link to read this alternative compilation of news stories and instead go back to relying on the other two news sources, with 100% guaranteed syntax accuracy, CNN and celebrity gossip blogs.
posted by salvia at 5:03 PM on October 10, 2008


P.S. by "the other two news sources," I meant "my other two news sources."

P.P.S. at Project Censored, they probably wouldn't even care enough to make this correction since, they don't even believe words have meaning
posted by salvia at 5:05 PM on October 10, 2008


ok, now there's a misplaced comma in that last comment. I'll stop typing now and go find a copy editor.
posted by salvia at 5:08 PM on October 10, 2008


If the editor chooses not to include them even though the editor thinks them interesting and believes they would be more appealing to audiences than the stories which are chosen, that is censorship without question.

Without question? Begging the question, more like. You -- and the link -- haven't shown that anything like this took place. Have you any evidence that the choosing editor thought them interesting and choose not to include them? Additionally, for any reasonable definition of censorship (as opposed to self-censorship), the censor has to be an outside force, not the editor's own judgement.

Furthermore, just because you find them interesting and think others would does not amount to a prima facie case that they were censored. Censorship has nothing at all to do with the level of interest you -- or anyone else -- show in the censored material. Even very dull things can be censored.

On top of both these things, none of the stories were censored: they were nearly all covered in mainstream media. The problem people have with the treatment of them is that they weren't given the sort of BIG STORY holler holler treatment that some people assume they deserve.

Those people happen to have a different viewpoint from editors.

I happen to think the editors were mostly right: look at how much coverage these stories got on metafilter, and how many comments they attracted when they got it. The problem is not that the stories were censored, it's that people didn't care about them.

That's not censorship, it's disdain, and the media was reacting to its audience's preferences. Contrary to belief and sadly for the media's self-image, it doesn't work nearly as well the other way around.
posted by bonaldi at 5:13 PM on October 10, 2008


Okay, you have convinced me to not even open the link to read this alternative compilation of news stories and instead go back to relying on the other two news sources, with 100% guaranteed syntax accuracy, CNN and celebrity gossip blogs.

That's fallacious. The point is why it's important to use language correctly if you want to be taken seriously, not that using language correctly means you should be taken seriously.
posted by bonaldi at 5:15 PM on October 10, 2008


It's been called project censored for something like 15 years. Quibbling about the name of this mulit-decade project, rather than discussing the content is a bit silly.
posted by dejah420 at 5:17 PM on October 10, 2008


Well, dejah, it's a stupid fucking name, as they tacitly admit by having a page where they justify the name by creating a whole new meaning all for themselves -- Modern Censorship.

Then they go on to define the one true way stories should be chosen for print. Like jamjam, they then mostly beg the question in their lists by rarely showing that these stories even meet their own definition for censorship. Sure, some might, but many more might not get any coverage simply because editors cared about other stories more.

By their own definition that's not censorship, it's just tough cheese.
posted by bonaldi at 5:29 PM on October 10, 2008


Okay, Take Two on the name of Project Censored: For those of you who want precision in language, when do you think the English language should have stopped evolving? 1899?

Also, are we allowed metaphors now?
posted by shetterly at 5:56 PM on October 10, 2008


ohfergodssake, from the third link: "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."

The Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation is the one that slays me how underreported, underdiscussed it is. It's truly outrageous.

Seizing War Protesters’ Assets
???!!! I thought it was bad enough they were being tasered, assaulted in front of witnesses, causing protestors/social activists to have criminal records or jailing them for the 'crime' of walking in an organized march.

Now "Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement"? yikes.

Any person whose assets are frozen immediately confronts a comprehensive quarantine. He may not receive and benefactors may not provide funds, goods, or services of any sort. A lawyer cannot provide legal services to challenge the secretary’s blocking order. A doctor cannot provide medical services in response to a cardiac arrest

What a grotesque nightmare.

Thanks for the post infini.
posted by nickyskye at 6:33 PM on October 10, 2008


The point is why it's important to use language correctly if you want to be taken seriously, not that using language correctly means you should be taken seriously.

Yes, I understand your point. At earlier stages in my life I would have agreed with you. But to me there's a lot of value here that's getting overlooked. Sure, we can discuss varying degrees of censorship, that might be interesting. But when you say "this is not censorship so the whole thing is bunk," I don't agree. In my opinion:
a) some significant stories do get under-emphasized by the MSM. There is a filter applied there. That makes the difference between this and "censorship" a matter of degree.
b) It is silly to pick one word in a longstanding title and claim it undermines the entire value of a project. ("The Sierra Club works outside the Sierras! And the Daily Show isn't daily!")
c) Everything is political. Every press release has a spin. Every news outlet has a spin. Saying that the word choice is politicized isn't a reason to stop listening. I mean, where can you turn and stop thinking about the source and the messenger? In fact, the source often is an industry group with a financial motivation. Sometimes, their spin or obfuscation is malicious and has real impacts on life and limb (eg, wars start, people get cancer). This is not one of those situations.
d) The project is fundamentally credible. The stories come from independent reporters from outside news agencies. The writeups include several outside data sources that you can read for yourself.

Most of all, I just think a semantic debate about the title is boring. I have already mentally re-titled the project "25 News Stories You Should Have Read But Maybe Didn't." I don't care what the title is it if it brings to my attention, for example, the fact that nuclear waste is showing up in regular landfills. Now I'm curious about how to find out if it's in my county's landfill. So, maybe those of us who find the content interesting can discuss it. Ah, on preview, nickyskye beat me to it!
posted by salvia at 6:46 PM on October 10, 2008


Bonaldi, your behavior in this thread increasingly brings to mind a remark Isaiah Berlin claims A J Ayer made to fellow philosopher John Austin in the course of one of their disputes:

You are like a greyhound who doesn't want to run himself and bites the other greyhounds, so that they cannot run either.

Except that your rather peevishly high-minded gummings don't seem to be deterring anybody much, but perhaps you could give them some teeth by providing a brief account of your criteria for what would constitute censorship of a news story, and an example of a story that has been censored, in your view.
posted by jamjam at 7:20 PM on October 10, 2008


Now "Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement"? yikes.

They're terrorists. Even the nuns.
posted by homunculus at 8:19 PM on October 10, 2008


my mother thinks my 3 year old nephew is a terrorist too ;p and he's most definitely on a watch list


posted by infini at 10:02 PM on October 10, 2008


It is silly to pick one word in a longstanding title and claim it undermines the entire value of a project. ("The Sierra Club works outside the Sierras! And the Daily Show isn't daily!")
Except it's nothing like that at all. It's like they called it "25 People Who Were Beaten To Death By Cops" and the list turned out to be people who'd died in plain old fights.

Sure, still bad, but not what the title's talking about. Would people still be going on about how metaphor and the evolution of language then? What if they'd used the title for years? Would it be OK then? No, it wouldn't. Because cop beatings matter, and so does censorship.

Censorship of the news is an awful thing. The nearest this list comes to it is a kind of self-censorship. That's still shitty -- as newspapers are dying I've more than once been disgusted as senior execs try to play down stories that would hurt major advertisers -- but it isn't anywhere near the gravity of actual censorship.

For a recent example, in China (and hopefully this will answer you jamjam), they've been trying their damndest to keep a lid on the toxic milk scandal, ordering state media not to cover it. Combined with their filtered internet, and you have a population that doesn't realise it could have been feeding its children poison in the name of profit. That's censorship, but it made a big splash over here so it doesn't make it onto the list.

The US tries to block a report of torture in Iraq? I want to know about it. There wasn't "enough" reporting from eyewitness accounts of vets returning from Iraq? Fair enough, nasty news media doesn't care. But it's not censorship, and it's verging on conspiracy-theory-global-media-runs-everything-ism to think that it is.

This doesn't piss me off because the stories don't matter, or because people shouldn't know about the things on the list -- they do and they should. But by claiming to have the definitive list of stories that were censored in, uh, 2009, and not actually having any, they're ignoring and downplaying the larger and more evil problem of real censorship. How's that for censorsing?
posted by bonaldi at 5:56 AM on October 11, 2008 [1 favorite]


equivocation
posted by infini at 6:58 AM on October 11, 2008


if censorship had ever meant anything like what they'd like it to.
posted by bonaldi at 7:23 AM on October 11, 2008


other sites are calling it "stories that MSM ignored"
posted by infini at 8:09 AM on October 11, 2008 [1 favorite]


infini, that suggests the MSM just happened to overlook these stories. "Censored" suggests the overlooking was intentional. If you look at who benefits from ignoring those stories, "censored" begins to seem appropriate. The point of censorship is not to erase people's minds. It's just to hide the evidence that might shape their positions.

bonaldi, I did a little googling to see what your name means, but I came up with nothing. That doesn't bother me, though--it's clear who you are in context. "Project Censored" is like that. Really, metaphorical names are okay in English.

You're also wrong about China. The article you linked to is a good example of MSM propaganda, but a less than perfect one, since it includes the evidence that it isn't true: "government reports saying four children had died." Governments don't report what they're censoring.
posted by shetterly at 11:48 AM on October 11, 2008


An afterthought: yes, governments may lie in their reports, which is a form of censorship if you don't get too literalistic.
posted by shetterly at 12:09 PM on October 11, 2008


I don't think there's any connotation of happenstance or accident in "ignore", shetterly, I think it's the perfect term for what was done to those stories. Ask any 6th grader whether it's possible to ignore something deliberately.

Thing is, if it's put in those terms then journalists get a little cagy, because justifying why important stories don't get attention while a single missing white girl is the end of the world is a difficult thing to do, especially if they're trying not to insult their audience at the same time.

Actual censorship, on the other hand, drives journalists absolutely nuts. They'll push like hell to break censorship like that; some have lost their lives in the attempt. If someone put out a real list of 25 stories that had been censored into the dust, you bet it would have been a big, big story. But that would have taken real work. This collection, however, was a c&p'd shopping list of already published stories the authors wanted more attention for. To paraphrase you: The MSM doesn't publish what it's censoring.

Anyway, I fear we're about to head deep into green ink territory where the MSM only emits propaganda in service to the big interests they only purport to investigate, so I need to leave this somewhere around here lest I slit my own throat with Occam's razor.
posted by bonaldi at 5:25 PM on October 11, 2008


Project Censored as censors? Missing from Project Censored's #1 Story (on Iraq) is any mention of the body of science which contradicts their "over one million Iraqi deaths" headline. There's no mention of the studies which produced lower estimates (IFHS, CRED [pdf], ILCS, etc). And no mention of the leading demographers, epidemiologists and statisticians who disagree with Project Censored's figure: Beth Duponte Osborne [pdf], Debarati Guha-Sapir, Olivier Degomme, Mark van der Laan, Jon Pedersen, Paul Spiegel, Stephen Fienberg, etc.

I count at least five peer-reviewed studies casting doubt on Lancet 2006, but none corroborating it. (The ORB poll wasn't peer-reviewed science, and according to ORB's publicity literature [pdf], the person who conducted the ORB poll, Munqith Daghir, started his polling career in 2003, with no formal training or field experience).

I've always opposed the war (ie mass bloody slaughter) in Iraq, but if there's no scientific consensus over the "one million" figure, why is Project Censored presenting it as definitive (see their headline) and not mentioning the research which refutes it?
posted by internationalfeel at 7:56 AM on October 25, 2008 [1 favorite]


« Older Doctor assisted suicide for the terminally ill, or...  |  Just as a California campaign ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments