Connect With Us

“Project Censored is one of the organizations that we should listen to, to be assured that our newspapers and our broadcasting outlets are practicing thorough and ethical journalism.” —Walter Cronkite
“Project Censored shines a spotlight on news that an informed public must have . . . a vital contribution to our democratic process.” —Rhoda H. Karpatkin, president, Consumer’s Union
“Those who read and support Project Censored are in the know.” —Cynthia McKinney
“Project Censored brings to light some of the most important stories of the year that you never saw or heard about. This is your chance to find out what got buried.” –Diane Ravitch, author of The Death and Life of the Great American School System.
“For ages, I’ve dreamed of a United States where Project Censored isn’t necessary, where these crucial stories and defining issues are on the front page of the New York Times, the cover of Time, and in heavy rotation on CNN. That world still doesn’t exist, but we always have Project Censored’s yearly book to pull together the most important things the corporate media ignored, missed, or botched.” –Russ Kick, author of You Are Being Lied To, Everything You Know Is Wrong, and the New York Times bestselling series The Graphic Canon.
“One of the most significant media research projects in the country.” —I. F. Stone
“Project Censored continues to be an invaluable resource in exposing and highlighting shocking stories that are routinely minimized or ignored by the corporate media. The vital nature of this work is underscored by this year’s NSA leaks. The world needs more brave whistle blowers and independent journalists in the service of reclaiming democracy and challenging the abuse of power. Project Censored stands out for its commitment to such work.” —Deepa Kumar, author of Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire and associate professor of Media Studies and Middle Eastern Studies at Rutgers University
Buy it, read it, act on it. Our future depends on the knowledge this col-lection of suppressed stories allows us.” —San Diego Review
“[Censored] should be affixed to the bulletin boards in every newsroom in America. And, perhaps read aloud to a few publishers and television executives.” —Ralph Nader
“Project Censored interrogates the present in the same way that Oliver Stone and I tried to interrogate the past in our Untold History of the United States. It not only shines a penetrating light on the American Empire and all its deadly, destructive, and deceitful actions, it does so at a time when the Obama administration is mounting a fierce effort to silence truth-tellers and whistleblowers. Project Censored provides the kind of fearless and honest journalism we so desperately need in these dangerous times.” —Peter Kuznick, professor of history, American University, and coauthor, with Oliver Stone, of The Untold History of the United States
“Hot news, cold truths, utterly uncensored.” —Greg Palast
“Activist groups like Project Censored . . . are helping to build the media democracy movement. We have to challenge the powers that be and rebuild media from the bottom up.” —Amy Goodman
“At a time when the need for independent journalism and for media outlets unaffiliated with and untainted by the government and corporate sponsors is greater than ever, Project Censored has created a context for reporting the complete truths in all matters that matter. . . . It is therefore left to us to find sources for information we can trust. . . . It is in this task that we are fortunate to have an ally like Project Cen-sored.” —Dahr Jamail
“Most journalists in the United States believe the press here is free. That grand illusion only helps obscure the fact that, by and large, the US corporate press does not report what’s really going on, while tuning out, or laughing off, all those who try to do just that. Americans–now more than ever–need those outlets that do labor to report some truth. Project Censored is not just among the bravest, smartest, and most rigorous of those outlets, but the only one that’s wholly focused on those stories that the corporate press ignores, downplays, and/or distorts. This latest book is therefore a must read for anyone who cares about this country, its tottering economy, and–most important– what’s now left of its democracy.” –Mark Crispin Miller, author, professor of media ecology, New York University.
“In another home run for Project Censored, Censored 2013 shows how the American public has been bamboozled, snookered, and dumbed down by the corporate media. It is chock-full of ‘ah-ha’ moments where we understand just how we’ve been fleeced by banksters, stripped of our civil liberties, and blindly led down a path of never-ending war.” –Medea Benjamin, author of Drone Warfare, cofounder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK.
“[Censored] offers devastating evidence of the dumbing-down of main-stream news in America. . . . Required reading for broadcasters, journalists, and well-informed citizens.” —Los Angeles Times
“Censored 2014 is a clarion call for truth telling. Not only does this volume highlight fearless speech in fateful times, it connect the dots between the key issues we face, lauds our whistleblowers and amplifies their voices, and shines light in the dark places of our government that most need exposure.” –Daniel Ellsberg, The Pentagon Papers
“The staff of Project Censored presents their annual compilation of the previous year’s 25 stories most overlooked by the mainstream media along with essays about censorship and its consequences. The stories include an 813% rise in hate and anti-government groups since 2008, human rights violations by the US Border Patrol, and Israeli doctors injecting Ethiopian immigrants with birth control without their consent. Other stories focus on the environment, like the effects of fracking and Monsantos GMO seeds. The writers point out misinformation and outright deception in the media, including CNN relegating factual accounts to the “opinion” section and the whitewashing of Margaret Thatcher’s career following her death in 2013, unlike Hugo Chavez, who was routinely disparaged in the coverage following his death. One essay deals with the proliferation of “Junk Food News,” in which “CNN and Fox News devoted more time to ‘Gangnam Style’ than the renewal of Uganda’s ‘Kill the Gays’ law.” Another explains common media manipulation tactics and outlines practices to becoming a more engaged, free-thinking news consumer or even citizen journalist. Rob Williams remarks on Hollywood’s “deep and abiding role as a popular propaganda provider” via Argo and Zero Dark Thirty. An expose on working conditions in Chinese Apple factories is brutal yet essential reading. This book is evident of Project Censored’s profoundly important work in educating readers on current events and the skills needed to be a critical thinker.” -Publisher’s Weekly said about Censored 2014 (Oct.)

13. Public Input and Congressional Oversight Locked Out of NAFTA

Sources: THE PROGRESSIVE Date: January 1993 Title: “Citizens Shut Out” Author: Jeremy Weintraub; ROLLING STONE Date: 10/28/93 Title: “Congress: Kill NAFTA-The free-trade agreement is a bad deal” Author: William Grieder; THE TEXAS OBSERVER Date: 6/18/93 Title: “Mexico Buys Free Trade” Author: Don Hazen

SYNOPSIS: The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, cited as perhaps one of the most important international trade policies in history, was created in what one member of Congress called “fifteen months of the most secretive trade negotiations I’ve ever monitored.”

Researcher and author Jeremy Weintraub reports, “From the beginning, negotiations were conducted clandestinely, documents classified, and statements veiled, all because, according to Administration officials, NAFTA was far too complex, too dense for the average member of Congress.”

Nonetheless, those same members of Congress were given ninety days to make a decision on whether to support or reject the treaty. It makes sense to ask, if NAFTA is as wide-ranging and complex as touted, how can the “average member of Congress,” let alone his or her constituents, make a reasonable, let alone intelligent, decision on the agreement.

Of course, most constituents won’t have a chance to read the treaty, Weintraub writes, “When NAFTA was completed…the U.S. trade representative’s office began allowing interested citizens to view the 2,000-page document-for one hour.” And while public participation was barred from the negotiation process, one industry expert after another was called in to comment or participate.

Critics also suggest that NAFTA is beginning to look a lot like the Reagan/Bush era’s final coup de grace for the labor movement and manufacturing in the U.S. and Canada. The flow of jobs to Mexico, already a major concern, is expected to increase with NAFTA, creating a long-term downward pressure on wages in the U.S. Meanwhile, labor in Mexico is also suffering. In a well-documented Rolling Stone article, author William Greider describes how American corporations already are trying to break the labor movement in Mexico.

Meanwhile, opponents charge that environmental oversight and standards are expected to devolve to the lowest common denominator under NAFTA, exacerbating the problems of toxic dumping and environmental abuse already evident in the maquiladora zone along the border. While the Mexican government has promised reforms, and has some highly paid public relations firms working to sell the American people on those promises, it has a long history of empty rhetoric.

In an interview published in The Texas Observer, Chuck Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity and the “scourge of the lobbying world,” said, “Since 1989, the Mexican government and the various Mexican corporate groups tied to the government such as COESCE [the Mexican Chamber of Commerce] have spent from $25 to $30 million for trade lobbying.” For perspective, that is more than twice what Kuwait spent to persuade Congress to attack Iraq.

While NAFTA has received con­siderable media coverage and will no doubt be one of the top 10 news stories on the Associated Press list for 1993, this nomination deals with the lack of information regarding the secretive trade nego­tiations that went into the develop­ment of the treaty and the lack of public input and congressional oversight.

SSU Censored Researcher: Paul Chambers

Comments: Given the lack of public input and congressional oversight, it was not surprising when NAFTA passed both houses with ease and turned North America into one of the world’s largest free trade zones. The highly touted Al Gore/Ross Perot “debate” didn’t hurt either.

Jeremy Weintraub, an author and researcher for the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC, provides an interesting insight into the media’s machinations behind the NAFTA vote.

“To most Americans,” Weintraub wrote, “NAFTA cov­erage in the mainstream media was probably excessive; yet NAFTA suf­fered an alarming degree of censor­ship, albeit unconventional. Rather than question the administration’s assumptions concerning the global economy, reporters seemed to accept tacitly the idea that public debate is an anathema to a healthy NAFTA; as a result, NAFTA cov­erage was largely obfuscating or, at best, superfluous.

“NAFTA hibernated long in the business pages of dailies, safe from public scrutiny-until the House vote neared. Suddenly, NAFTA was headline news and mass media out­lets gave business executives and pro-NAFTA government officials limitless room to explain its signifi­cance. In contrast, the environ­mental, labor, and consumer groups who campaigned tirelessly to high­light NAFTA’s shortcomings couldn’t get a word in edgewise. Television coverage of NAFTA lacked analysis but provided one of the most entertaining debates in recent history: Ross Perot versus Vice President Al Gore. The two combatants fired from their machine-gun-mouths invectives and accusations; and, while little of substance was said, Gore came across better, and the polls reflected an increase in NAFTA support.

“If mainstream coverage had extended beyond the jobs-environ­ment debate and included reports on the lack of citizen input and oversight in creating NAFTA, the public would likely have rejected NAFTA early on as an affront to democracy. With the end of the Cold War, there is now even less justification for closed-door deals.

“Through its irresponsible cov­erage of one issue-NAFTA-the mass media abetted or supported: (a) The conviction, held by reac­tionary government officials, that government knows best what the public needs-thereby entrenching an outmoded, unacceptable rela­tionship between the federal gov­ernment and its citizens. Ironically, the U.S. press repeatedly high­lighted the lack of democratic par­ticipation in ratifying NAFTA in Mexico, while somehow alluding to a contrast in America. (b) Profit­-minded business executives who admitted freely to the Wall Street Journal their plans to move opera­tions to Mexico. These same execu­tives run corporations like DuPont, ranked toxic offender number one by the EPA; and General Electric, a notorious violator of worker rights in Mexico; and they crafted NAFTA with a single goal: global market domination, with no regard for communities, jobs, the environ­ment, or democracy. As a result NAFTA contains many provisions for investment rights but few rights for citizens affected by the “fruits’ of free-trade.

“Many examples illustrate the dour effects of mainstream media’s unprovocative, tired reporting. The most striking indictment is that NAFTA remains obscure in the public’s mind: few know what N-A­F T A stands for, let alone what it stands to do…. Reactions to NAFTA’s passage ranged from “I’ve seen it on TV and listened to them talk about it. But I’m not really aware of what it’s about,’ to `Does it have something to do with Africa,’ to ‘I don’t know anything about it and I’ve never heard of it,’ the last being a candid admission by a university student.

“Moreover, Congressional inte­grity was compromised by the Administration’s pro-NAFTA strong-arm tactics. The Wall Street journal reported strategic meetings between the White House and pro-­NAFTA corporations in the weeks preceding the House vote; these corporations were told to pressure,  with the threat of withholding cam­paign contributions, undecided law­makers into voting for NAFTA. Similarly, the Administration cut various deals to assure passage of NAFTA….

“In all cases, if the mass media had reported NAFTA’s secrecy and resultant narrow agenda, thought­ful members of Congress would not have felt pressured to sign into law an agreement they know to be undemocratic; and their con­stituents would have balked.”

Investigative author Don Hazen interviewed Chuck Lewis, execu­tive director of the Center for Public Integrity, just prior to the release of the Center’s study, “The Trading Game: Inside Lobbying for the North American Free Trade Agreement.” The study was pre­sented at a news conference in Washington, DC, on May 27, 1993.

While the study received limited print media coverage and some cov­erage on NPR and cable television (CNN, C-Span, and CNBC), Hazen speculated as to why it received no network television coverage.

`ABC, NBC and CBS all brought their cameras to the news confer­ence but never aired anything. Apparently, the chief attorney for Mexico sent a letter raising ques­tions about the Center’s forth­coming study to ABC executives prior to May 27th, the date of the press conference.

“The networks snub of this extremely important and compre­hensive study generated consider­able speculation about what really happened. At this point, no one has the answers, but some possible related issues are: 1. In April, Capital Cities/ABC made an offer to buy a recently-privatized televi­sion network in Mexico, which would presumably require some sort of Mexican government approval. 2. CBS, through Chair­man Lawrence Tisch’s Loew’s com­pany, has financial ties to Mexico. 3. General Electric, which owns NBC and also has holding in Mexico, was one of the most aggressive pro-NAFTA companies.

“In a related event, Fox Tele­vision retained the Center as a paid consultant for a `Front Page’ seg­ment on NAFTA lobbying, but after taped interviews were done in several cities, and the piece was produced, it never aired and no reason was given. Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox, signed newspaper advertisements pushing for NAFTA in the days prior to the vote.”

Finally, now that the dust has settled on NAFTA, the push is on for GATT. And, once again, as was the case with NAFTA, few in the public know what G-A-T-T stands for, let alone what it stands to do.

Facebook Comments