Connect With Us

“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
“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
“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.
“[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
“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.
“One of the most significant media research projects in the country.” —I. F. Stone
“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.)
“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
“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
“[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
Buy it, read it, act on it. Our future depends on the knowledge this col-lection of suppressed stories allows us.” —San Diego Review
“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
“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.
“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
“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.
“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

14. News Media Lose the War With the Pentagon

Source: The Nation, 72 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10011, Date: 5/11/92, Title: “The Media’s War,” Author: Jacqueline E. Sharkey

SSU Censored Researcher: Amy Cohen

SYNOPSIS: In the wake of protests over press restrictions and censorship during the Gulf War, the Pentagon and major media representatives have negotiated guidelines for coverage of future conflicts. However, the agreement, hailed as a posi­tive step in the relationship between the military and the media, appears to be worth-less.

Supported by Washington bureau chiefs, the American Society of Newspa­per Editors and high-level executives from electronic and print media, the agreement is designed to prevent the Pentagon from controlling the media as it did in the Per­sian Gulf, where journalists were confined to pools that had limited access to the battlefield.

A major flaw in the agreement is that no consensus was reached on “security reviews,” which deal with the critical prior restraint aspect of censorship. More im­portant, however, is the fact that the Penta­gon has a well-documented history of vio­lating media coverage agreements such as those drawn up in the wake of both the Grenada and Panama invasions, where journalists were prevented from covering much of the fighting. In fact, the only significant change to previous coverage agree­ments is the inclusion of more restrictive measures.

 Under the proposed agreement, re­porters who violate the Pentagon’s guide­lines for protecting military secrecy and U.S. troops can have their combat creden­tials suspended and be expelled from battle zones. Ironically, these guidelines have not been written yet, and the Pentagon is not required to consult with journalists before writing them.

“What the Pentagon is doing is giving itself a club to use over journalists,” says Scripps-Howard reporter Joan Lowy, who covered the Gulf War. “They’re going to write these ground rules, but we don’t know what they are yet. And then if you don’t go by their interpretation … as they interpret them under security review, they’ll kick you out. It’s a very effective form of censorship.”

Jane Kirtley, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, believes the very existence of the proposed agreement is an admission of how weak the media’s position is now. She says that endorsing the agreement is “writing your own death warrant.”

In the meantime, major media execu­tives proudly proclaim the agreement as “a victory for common sense that few pre­dicted a year ago.” Others perceive it as merely additional evidence of the great media sellout to the administration, as noted in the synopsis “The Great Media Sell-Out to Reaganism.”

COMMENTS: Jacqueline E. Sharkey is author of Under Fire — U.S. Military Restric­tions on the Media from Grenada to the Persian Gulf. Published by the Center for Public Integrity, a public-interest organiza­tion founded by investigative reporters to promote in-depth coverage of federal gov­ernment activities, Under Fire was the first book to document the disastrous effects of the Defense Department’s media regula­tions in the Gulf War. Sharkey’s article for The Nation grew out of the book.

Sharkey reports that the revision of the Pentagon’s wartime media-coverage rules received little major media expo­sure.

“The New York Times and the Wash­ington Post ran short stories buried inside the A section,” Sharkey says, “but network news programs and the news weeklies largely ignored the issue.

“This is especially serious in light of the fact that the media had acknowledged (albeit late and reluctantly) that they had been manipulated by the Pentagon and the White House during the Gulf War and had presented a misleading and highly sanitized view of the conflict and its conse­quences to the American people. Never­theless, just 14 months after the war ended (and the mea culpas about the media’s poor performance had begun) news ex­ecutives agreed to `revised’ rules that will enable the Pentagon to impose the same type of de facto censorship of images and information during the next U.S. military operation.

“Committing troops to military opera­tions abroad is one of the most serious decisions a democratic government can make. This has become a crucial issue in the United States during the past 10 years as the Reagan and Bush administrations have used `limited wars’-in Grenada, Panama and the Gulf as a foreign policy tool that also has bolstered their approval ratings in the polls. In each of these wars, the press was increasingly controlled, and the information increasingly sanitized.

“Retired Army Col. David Hackworth­ America’s most-decorated living soldier, who covered the Gulf conflict for Newsweek-has pointed out that this situ­ation, combined with low U.S. casualties, has given the public a distorted picture of war and its consequences. This could have serious repercussions for the country dur­ing the next conflict, when American ca­sualties could be much higher.

“What people need to evaluate whether their government should send its troops to war-and whether that decision was worth the price that had to be paid-is independent, objective information. That is exactly what they will not get the next time the United States engages in a military operation, because the `revised’ wartime ­coverage rules will enable the Pentagon and White House to control images and information once again. People have a right-and a need-to know that their abil­ity to obtain enough information to evalu­ate elected leaders and their policies ad­equately has been seriously compromised by the media’s surrender to the Pentagon.

“During the U.S. military operations in Grenada, Panama and the Gulf, the White House and Pentagon restricted press ac­cess and controlled information not for national security purposes, but for political purposes, to protect the image and priori­ties of the Defense Department and its civilian leaders, including those of the presi­dent, the commander-in-chief. White House and Pentagon officials benefit greatly from lack of exposure about the ways in which the `revised’ rules for cover­ing future operations will allow the govern­ment to control perceptions, and there­fore public opinion, about decisions to go to war.

“The major media also benefit from lack of coverage about this issue. At a time when public confidence in the media has fallen significantly, news executives have to be concerned about what would hap­pen if the American people realized that the press had sacrificed their interests­ and their need for first-hand, objective information in wartime-because of pres­sure from the very political institutions with which the press is supposed to have an adversarial relationship.”

Research material from Under Fire has been used by various news agencies for follow-up stories and the book is being used in political science and journalism classes in Washington, DC, Texas and Colorado. Following The Nation article, Sharkey debated Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Pete Williams about the revised rules, and previous ver­sions used in Grenada, Panama and the Gulf, during a session for media and mili­tary personnel arranged by the Freedom Forum and shown on C-SPAN, and on a CBS-Radio talk show.

While other journalists now have criti­cized the media for going along with these new rules, Sharkey points out that much of this debate has not been reported in major media. “The public remains uninformed about what these rules represent,” she concludes, “or the repercussions they will have on the American people’s ability to obtain in-depth information about the causes and consequences of future wars.”

PLEASE NOTE: For more information about Under Fire-U.S. Military Restric­tions on the Media from Grenada to the Persian Gulf, write The Center for Public Integrity, 1910 K Street NW, Suite 802, Washington, DC 20006.

Facebook Comments