Project Censored - Page 3

Annual media watchdog list critiques coverage of whistleblowers and wealth gaps -- and the notion of journalistic objectivity


Alexa O'Brien, a former Occupy activist, scooped most of the media by actually attending Manning's trial. She produced tens of thousands of words in transcriptions of the court hearings, one of the only reporters on the beat.

2. Richest Global 1 Percent Hide Billions in Tax Havens

Global corporate fatcats hold $21-32 trillion in offshore havens, money hidden from government taxation that would benefit people around the world, according to findings by James S. Henry, the former chief economist of the global management firm McKinsey & Company.

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists obtained a leak in April 2013, revealing how widespread the buy-in was to these tax havens. The findings were damning: government officials in Canada, Russia, and other countries have embraced offshore accounts, the world's top banks (including Deutsche Bank) have worked to maintain them, and the tax havens are used in Ponzi schemes.

Moving money offshore has implications that ripped through the world economy. Part of Greece's economic collapse was due to these tax havens, ICIJ reporter Gerard Ryle told Gladstone on her radio show. "It's because people don't want to pay taxes," he said. "You avoid taxes by going offshore and playing by different rules."

US Senator Carl Levin, D-Michigan, introduced legislation to combat the practice, SB1533, The Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, but so far the bill has had little play in the media.

Researcher James Henry said the hidden wealth was a "huge black hole" in the world economy that has never been measured, which could generate income tax revenues between $190-280 billion a year.

3. Trans-Pacific Partnership

Take 600 corporate advisors, mix in officials from 11 international governments, let it bake for about two years, and out pops international partnerships that threaten to cripple progressive movements worldwide.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a trade agreement, but leaked texts show it may allow foreign investors to use "investor-state" tribunals to extract extravagant extra damages for "expected future profits," according to the Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch.

The trade watch group investigated the TPP and is the main advocate in opposition of its policies. The AFL-CIO, Sierra Club, and other organizations have also had growing concerns about the level of access granted to corporations in these agreements.

With extra powers granted to foreign firms, the possibility that companies would continue moving offshore could grow. But even with the risks of outsized corporate influence, the US has a strong interest in the TPP in order to maintain trade agreements with Asia.

The balancing act between corporate and public interests is at stake, but until the US releases more documents from negotiations, the American people will remain in the dark.

4. Obama's War on Whistleblowers

President Obama has invoked the Espionage Act of 1917 more than every other president combined. Seven times, Obama has pursued leakers with the act, against Thomas Drake, Shamai Leibowitz, Bradley Manning, Stephen Kim, Jeffrey Sterling, John Kiriakou and most recently, Edward Snowden. All had ties to the State Department, FBI, CIA, or NSA, and all of them leaked to journalists.

"Neither party is raising hell over this. This is the sort of story that sort of slips through the cracks," McChesney said. And when the politicians don't raise a fuss, neither does the media.

Pro Publica covered the issue, constructing timelines and mapping out the various arrests and indictments. But where Project Censored points out the lack of coverage is in Obama's hypocrisy — only a year before, he signed The Whistleblower Protection Act.

Later on, he said he wouldn't follow every letter of the law in the bill he had only just signed.


was part of the process to censor the real story?

Posted by Matlock on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 7:24 pm

"Manning's career was sacrificed for sending 700,000 classified documents about the Iraq war to WikiLeaks," writes Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez. "But the media coverage focused largely on Manning's trial and subsequent change in gender identity."

First, a factual correction: of the 734,885 documents Manning passed to WikiLeaks, not all were classified and many had nothing to do with Iraq.

More to the point, there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the media focused on Manning instead of his leaks. Few of those disclosures had lasting newsworthiness. As Denver Nicks observes in his biography of Manning, "The administration and its cheerleaders sought to downplay the significance of the leaks by highlighting how benign they ultimately were, and they were right. … Taken on the whole, the logs were profoundly, troublingly boring, of interest primarily to journalists and historians." The Iraq War Logs, Nicks goes on, "confirmed the narrative of a complex and messy war that had been widely reported in the mainstream press. … For the most part the leaks merely confirmed what was already assumed or asserted."

Additionally, Manning's legal defense team during the lengthy pretrial and trial phases of his court-martial kept the focus on the accused, not on the substance of his leaks. This included Manning's gender identity conflict, which was introduced repeatedly into the proceedings by defense lawyers over the government's consistent objections that it wasn't relevant.

Considering its lack of ongoing significance and dearth of fresh developments, the Manning case was covered more than adequately by news organizations worldwide. If journalism is the first draft of history, then naturally once that draft is finished, journalists move on to other stories and leave the final telling to historians. And leave the second-guessing, it seems, to Project Censored.

Posted by Alan Kurtz on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 12:48 pm

I think releasing state secrets is OK in general.

The people who made the big deal about Manning's private life were; Manning, his lawyers, idiotic liberals... you know, like the ones you find writing at SFBG.

Manning's sexual identity was a huge issue for SF progressobots, you know the hysterics around the pride parade?

Now it's not an issue when they progressives were in hysterics over it?

Posted by Matlock on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 6:10 pm

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into reactionary hyperbole and/or petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 10:00 pm

If banks were required to accrue operation equity (retained interest payments) equivalent to about 35-40%, appended with binding regulatory policies, then obfuscated hyperinflation, equivalent to approximately 300% of GDP, might be relieved instead of waiting for crisis, translated economic shock.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 1:42 pm

What was that incoherent drivel?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 2:27 pm

Basically what he's saying, is that if banks/lenders were required to keep a lot more real cash on hand to sufficiently protect against losses on loans that they have given out, then economic bubbles would be far less likely to grow too large and go haywire, to then collapse the global economic system. This is because defaults on loans, mortgages, and other credit debt could more easily and quickly be covered by that better store of cash on hand.

Currently banks/lenders can lend out at least 10 times more money than they keep on hand; and often they manage to crazily lend out orders of magnitude more (the latter which is totally insane and amounts to out-of-control mass counterfeiting using the computer hard drives of banks as virtual printing presses that endlessly churn out worthless 'money' in the form of new debt).

So what guest is getting at, is that if banks/lenders were required to back each dollar that they lend with at least 35 to 40 cents in their own holdings, the economy would be a lot less crazy and probably not fall apart every few decades or so.

Personally, I don't agree, because we are reaching the end of the viability of -any- economic system based on perpetual growth and new money/interest creation. Even far more sensible money lending for interest is now doomed, to both fail economically, and to trash the planet environmentally.

We need to end interest based money creation.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 10:24 pm

@ Eric Brooks: Relevant to your last paragraph, Kozul-Wright and Vos (forgot their first names) agree with you, and I with some reservation, but financial institutions should begin somewhere to begin to stop the pressure. Thank you, too, for the economic lingo. Much of my economic-speak was derived from "The Banker's New Clothes" by Anat Admati. If I recall, she is an instructor at Stanford University.

Posted by Awayneramsey on Oct. 03, 2013 @ 9:00 am
Posted by Guest on Oct. 03, 2013 @ 9:53 am

It is actually completely crazy that we allow private profiteers to run our banking, money, and financing system. That is a recipe for out-of-control abuse of the economy.

These functions should all be managed by local, state and national governments, at no interest; and perhaps by some nonprofit co-ops and credit unions (likewise at little or no interest).

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 03, 2013 @ 10:07 am

Eric, some of ideas are so damn plain crazy that I wonder if you really here as a right-wing mole to discredit the left.

Even socialist countries don't run with just one State-owned Bank. The lack of competition almost ensures bad service. Imagine if making a withdrawal was a bureaucratic nightmare like trying to pull a permit at DBI?

But there is nothing to stop you setting up a co-operative bank or a credit union, so what are you waiting for. Everyone can have free money in the socialist nirvana that would be Eric's Bank.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 03, 2013 @ 10:34 am

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into reactionary hyperbole and/or petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Oct. 03, 2013 @ 10:49 am

Very interesting article about the uncovered issues by corporate journalists. While not a journalist by training, it became evident to me that the information being provided to us is filtered and then passed along. If you look locally at what is going on, there are corporate owned media companies set up to extract information that belongs to the community and then packages it, and sells it back to us. As our constitution dictated, this free press is essential to hold together our democracy by seeking and reporting on objective truths. An informed citizenry is essential to a fully functioning democracy.

However, monied interests figured out that if they controlled the information, they could also dictate how the story was being told. If you look at the issues covered in this article, all of them could have been prevented had the press been doing their job.

It's obvious to me as an entrepreneur and student of change - it is impossible for an industry where 90% of the firms are owned by 6 parent companies have the willingness to change. It's not in their best interest since they are part of the problem. Most of the 6 parent companies have substantial loans from the large financial institutions given a pass since 2008. The financiers and military industrial complex run this country. The Fed is controlled by them - not by the government. The last president that tried to end our dependency on the Federal Reserve was JFK. Can you say grassy knoll?

There was a great video on CNBC recently where they invited a Salon journalist who tried to hold Jamie Dimon accountable for all the fraud being committed at JP Morgan Chase. The two on-air mouthpieces and one call in guest went directly into apology mode and disgust about his fact finding and holding someone like Jamie Dimon accountable. Check out the article and the video:

Posted by Todd Smekens on Oct. 03, 2013 @ 2:21 pm

When I was desperately looking for someone that can do my homework sincerely, one of my friends suggested me to visit Smart Custom Writing for professional help, and it really worked for me.

Posted by Do my homework on Dec. 12, 2013 @ 5:21 am

Thanks for sharing such an interesting information. essay website I think this is really a very nice post.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 27, 2014 @ 4:40 am

My spouse and i definitely savored each amount of the item along with I've got people book marked to see brand new products people publish...

Posted by Guest on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 10:22 pm

Find the right choice to get the away your unwanted hair from your body...
stop grow hair growth inhibitor

Posted by Guest on May. 17, 2014 @ 8:41 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Also from this author

  • Messed up: Did this man vandalize Alejandro Nieto's memorial?

  • San Francisco's shame and triumph: remembering the I-Hotel

  • Mayoral meltdown

    Mayor Ed Lee pushes back against ballot measures for affordable housing, transportation funding