By Bruce B. Brugmann
Every year, the Guardian runs a major front page story from Project Censored at Sonoma State University, listing the 20 major stories that have been “censored” or underreported during the previous year by the mainstream media.
Since 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq with “Shock and Awe,” the project’s stories have criticized the runup to the war, the lies of the Bush administration, the mendacity of the neocons promoting the war, the lousy media coverage, on and on. Neither the project nor most of the stories were published by the mainstream media. And the New York Times, and its sister paper the Santa Rosa Press Democrat near Sonoma State, refused to run the Censored story nor to explain why. (Last year, to its credit, the Press Democrat did a story on Censored.)
Now, the media reform organization Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has raised anew an important point involving a major New York Times story on April 20 that exposed the Pentagon’s program of feeding talking points to military pundits featured on TV newscasts. (Fair pointed out rightly that the military analysts’ ties with military contractors and advocacy groups had been documented as far back as 2003 with a report in the Nation (4/21).
FAIR’s point: “While the Times article focused on the role of the Pentagon, the parties that arguable have most to answer for are the media organizations that relied on these Pentagon analysts and failed to disclose blatant conflicts of interest posed by their ties with defense contractors…Of course, the Pentagon’s propaganda plan would have little effect if not for the enthusiastic participation of the corporate media.”
My question: when will the mainstream media start interviewing such prominent war critics as Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and others of this caliber? Meanwhile, keep an eye out for our Project Censored package later this year.
Here’s the FAIR article and its call to action to hassle the five major networks: