As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

What should've made the news, but didn't...

MunroMunro Registered User regular
edited January 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
I was goofing around on the internet when I stumbled upon this website: http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm

The top 25 stories the media didn't report on in 2006... not too sure why it says 2007 there, but the page certainly is interesting... I was wondering if anyone would like to discuss any of the stories here, or if anyone is familiar with any other big stories that didn't make it to the presses, or if anyone would like to discuss the media's role in society and obligation, if any, to the public.

This list, to me, is disturbing. These are big stories that are being ignored for one reason or another. Perhaps the news media simply did not find some of them interesting, perhaps there were conflicting interests, but very few of this seem to be issues that don't merit being brought to the attention of the public.

Munro on
«13

Posts

  • Options
    HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    I'm choosing to ignore everything I just read on that page because it's so god damned depressing.

    Hoz on
  • Options
    3lwap03lwap0 Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Hoz wrote:
    I'm choosing to ignore everything I just read on that page because it's so god damned depressing.

    QFT. I'm gonna go cry myself to sleep now.

    3lwap0 on
  • Options
    CronusCronus Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    It's very sad that we hear so much about Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, but so little about these stories. I've heard nothing on the MSM about global warming except for people saying that it's too early to tell whether the oil companies or scientists are correct. Financial interest is never discussed.

    Let me repeat that as I believe it bears repeating, financial interest is never discussed. Why do we never hear the background and specifics of any serious story. When a reporter is talking about something, say global warming, they will say some standard punditry line about not knowing whether the billions of tons of pollutants pumped into the sky have had any impact on the Earth or if it is a natural change. Reporters never reference sources or studies, or discuss the causes of a problem.


    "It's the press' job to try make the important seem interesting. But instead, they try to make the interesting seem important." - Bill Maher

    Cronus on
    camo_sig.png
    "Read twice, post once. It's almost like 'measure twice, cut once' only with reading." - MetaverseNomad
  • Options
    WylderWylder Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    God damn everything.

    Oh wait.... it seems he is one step ahead of me :/

    Wylder on
    No sig for you!
  • Options
    ShoggothShoggoth Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    I'm wondering how sound the science is in the geneticlly modifed food story. I rarely trust those 'OMG THE RATS DIED" experiments.

    Some of these are intersting though.

    Shoggoth on
    11tu0w1.jpg
  • Options
    JinniganJinnigan Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    I blame the fact that United States TV is funded by advertisements, instead of taxes.

    Jinnigan on
    whatifihadnofriendsshortenedsiggy2.jpg
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    That page is less then interesting. None of those things were reported on extensively because they're all too god damn depressing. Which is why we have the internet to bring them to me instead, but really, there's a limit to how much I can give a fuck about other people fucking up.

    Also the GM one really doesn't seem on all that solid footing to begin with.

    EDIT: The GM one is really just blatent fear-mongering. The other ones are things which I have actually heard about, or which are totally unsurprising but amazingly US-centric (and thus not really relevant when they don't deal with multi-nationals I deal with).

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    ZOMG ENTROPYKID WAS RIGHT

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    we are ready to rock?



    Not sure if it was the same thing, but we had one of these a while back. Pretty damn depressing just how shitty american news is.

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • Options
    ALockslyALocksly Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    I would ask for some serious fact checking on several of these, particularly the GM food and 9-11 ones.

    I'll take my grain of salt now

    edit: there seems to be some good stuff in there as well. I heard about the Gold mine story a few months back and checked it out myself. It was as reported here.

    ALocksly on
    Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
  • Options
    Charlie_Foxtrot2Charlie_Foxtrot2 Registered User regular
    edited January 2007

    #4 Hunger and Homelessness Increasing in the US

    Sources:

    The New Standard, December 2005
    Title: “New Report Shows Increase in Urban Hunger, Homelessness”
    Author: Brendan Coyne

    OneWorld.net, March, 2006
    Title: “US Plan to Eliminate Survey of Needy Families Draws Fire “
    Author: Abid Aslam

    Faculty Evaluator: Myrna Goodman
    Student Researcher: Arlene Ward and Brett Forest

    The number of hungry and homeless people in U.S. cities continued to grow in 2005, despite claims of an improved economy. Increased demand for vital services rose as needs of the most destitute went unmet, according to the annual U.S. Conference of Mayors Report, which has documented increasing need since its 1982 inception.

    The study measures instances of emergency food and housing assistance in twenty-four U.S. cities and utilizes supplemental information from the U.S. Census and Department of Labor. More than three-quarters of cities surveyed reported increases in demand for food and housing, especially among families. Food aid requests expanded by 12 percent in 2005, while aid center and food bank resources grew by only 7 percent. Service providers estimated 18 percent of requests went unattended. Housing followed a similar trend, as a majority of cities reported an increase in demand for emergency shelter, often going unmet due to lack of resources.

    As urban hunger and homelessness increases in America, the Bush administration is planning to eliminate a U.S. survey widely used to improve federal and state programs for low-income and retired Americans, reports Abid Aslam.
    President Bush’s proposed budget for fiscal 2007, which begins October 2006, includes a Commerce Department plan to eliminate the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). The proposal marks at least the third White House attempt in as many years to do away with federal data collection on politically prickly economic issues.
    Founded in 1984, the Census Bureau survey follows American families for a number of years and monitors their use of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, child care, and other health, social service, and education programs.

    Some 415 economists and social scientists signed a letter and sent it to Congress, shortly after the February release of Bush’s federal budget proposal, urging that the survey be fully funded as it “is the only large-scale survey explicitly designed to analyze the impact of a wide variety of government programs on the well being of American families.”
    Heather Boushey, economist at the Washington, D.C.–based Center for Economic and Policy Research told Abid Aslam, “We need to know what the effects of these programs are on American families . . . SIPP is designed to do just that.” Boushey added that the survey has proved invaluable in tracking the effects of changes in government programs. So much so that the 1996 welfare reform law specifically mentioned the survey as the best means to evaluate the law’s effectiveness.

    Supporters of the survey elimination say the program costs too much at $40 million per year. They would kill it in September and eventually replace it with a scaled-down version that would run to $9.2 million in development costs during the coming fiscal year. Actual data collection would begin in 2009.

    Defenders of the survey counter that the cost is justified as SIPP “provides a constant stream of in-depth data that enables government, academic, and independent researchers to evaluate the effectiveness and improve the efficiency of several hundred billion dollars in spending on social programs,” including homeless shelters and emergency food aid.

    UPDATE BY ABID ASLAM
    As of the end of May 2006, hundreds of economists and social scientists remain engaged in a bid to save the U.S. Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). Ideologically diverse users describe the survey as pioneering and say it has helped to improve the uptake and performance of, and to gauge the effects on American families of changes in public provisions ranging from Medicaid to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and school lunch programs.

    A few journalists took notice because users of the data, including the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), which spearheaded the effort to save SIPP, chose to make some noise.By most accounts, the matter was a simple fight over money: the administration was out to cut any hint of flesh from bureaucratic budgets (perhaps to feed its foreign policy pursuits) but users of the survey wanted the money spent on SIPP because, in their view, the program is valuable and no feasible alternative exists or has been proposed.

    That debate remains to be resolved. Lobbyists expect more legislative action in June and among them, CEPR remains available to provide updates.But is it just an isolated budget fight? This is the third time in as many years that the Bush administration has tried—and in the previous two cases, failed under pressure from users and advocates—to strip funding for awkward research. In 2003, it had tried to kill the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Mass Layoff Statistics report, which detailed where workplaces with more than fifty employees closed and what kinds of workers were affected. In 2004 and 2005, it had attempted to drop questions on the hiring and firing of women from employment data collected by the BLS. Hardly big-ticket items on the federal budget, the mass layoffs reports provided federal and state social service agencies with data crucial for planning even as it chronicled job losses and the so-called “jobless recovery.” The women’s questionnaire uncovered employment discrimination.

    In other words, SIPP and the BLS programs are politically prickly. They highlight that, regardless of what some politicians and executives might say, economic and social problems persist and involve real people whose real needs remain to be met. This calls to mind the old line about there being three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. To be convincing, they must be broadly consistent. If the numbers don’t support the narrative, something simply must give. With the livelihoods, life chances, and rights of millions of citizens at stake, these are more than stories about arcane budget wrangles.

    This doesn't surprise me a bit. I thought everyone knew that US politicians didn't care for the impoverish and will do anything in their powers not to acknowledge their plight.(Even though there are Government programs such as SSI and what not.) But my point still stands.

    Charlie_Foxtrot2 on
    logo%20graf%201.jpg
  • Options
    WylderWylder Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    I dont particularly care about the GM food story. "GM Foods Oh Noez" has been done a few times, and I give it a little bit of credit, but I remain unconvinced pending further evidence which probably wont be available for several generations.

    The things that really bothered me though are the ones that are almost certainly true. Rising temperatures, mercury levels and CO2 levels in the ocean is a good example. We know its happening. Its been proved over and over. Still fucking scary because the problem just gets worse every year.

    Wylder on
    No sig for you!
  • Options
    HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    If the oceans get too warm how would that affect the overall climate? Would it start an ice age?

    Hoz on
  • Options
    redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Hoz wrote:
    If the oceans get too warm how would that affect the overall climate? Would it start an ice age?

    it could yes.

    not exactly a new idea or anything.

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited January 2007
    Wylder wrote:
    The things that really bothered me though are the ones that are almost certainly true. Rising temperatures, mercury levels and CO2 levels in the ocean is a good example. We know its happening. Its been proved over and over. Still fucking scary because the problem just gets worse every year.
    No man it's cool; the market will take care of it.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    And how fast would this ice age happen, like would I be dead by the time it got bad?

    This is reminding me of Children of Men except there's no baby to give hope.

    Hoz on
  • Options
    redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Hoz wrote:
    And how fast would this ice age happen, like would I be dead by the time it got bad?

    This is reminding me of Children of Men except there's no baby to give hope.

    depends on where you live.

    if you live in europe or the third world. Yes.

    If you lived in south america, the US, austrailia, or really close to the equator in a country that does not have too many natural resourse, you might live long enough for it to get bad.

    Otherwise you will freeze to death, starve to death or be killed by the US hunting down every posible source of energy, before it gets truely bad.

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • Options
    HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Every time I see "GM food source" I think "General Motors food source", and then I wonder why it isn't obvious that eating tires and motor parts are bad for your health.

    :|

    But damn, that list is not a happy one.

    Hakkekage on
    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
  • Options
    KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2007
    Huh. Internment camps in the U.S.? Worked well during WWII, m i rite

    Kazhiim on
    lost_sig2.png
  • Options
    GarthorGarthor Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Kazhiim wrote:
    Huh. Internment camps in the U.S.? Worked well during WWII, m i rite

    Well, we did win the war.

    Garthor on
  • Options
    ZampanoZampano Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    #12 Pentagon Plans to Build New Landmines

    Seriously. That is not a good plan.

    Zampano on
    BrawlSig.gif
  • Options
    CronusCronus Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Irond Will wrote:
    Wylder wrote:
    The things that really bothered me though are the ones that are almost certainly true. Rising temperatures, mercury levels and CO2 levels in the ocean is a good example. We know its happening. Its been proved over and over. Still fucking scary because the problem just gets worse every year.
    No man it's cool; the market will take care of it.


    I find it sad that this seems to be the US Governments plans for global warming, pollution, fuel, and consumer safety.

    Cronus on
    camo_sig.png
    "Read twice, post once. It's almost like 'measure twice, cut once' only with reading." - MetaverseNomad
  • Options
    [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Hoz wrote:
    If the oceans get too warm how would that affect the overall climate? Would it start an ice age?

    The big problem is that nobody knows. The oceans of the world are very complex thermodynamic systems (heat moves around in complicated ways). Plus it interacts with the atmosphere and the ice caps, again in largely unknown ways.

    But I am way more concerned with ocean warming than atmosphere warming (although they have the same original cause). The ocean is big, really big, and can hold a lot of heat. Ponder for a moment, which heats up faster: a room, or a swimming pool? Then ponder which takes longer to cool down after its been warmed up.

    I am pretty worried to be honest.

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • Options
    TreelootTreeloot Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    #2 Halliburton Charged with Selling Nuclear Technologies to Iran

    Good lord.

    Treeloot on
  • Options
    redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Zampano wrote:
    #12 Pentagon Plans to Build New Landmines

    Seriously. That is not a good plan.

    that's that pakistan border thing right?

    it's not like we signed anything saying we wouldn't use them.


    oh, just making them. meh.

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • Options
    KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2007
    [quote=[Tycho?]]
    Hoz wrote:
    If the oceans get too warm how would that affect the overall climate? Would it start an ice age?

    The big problem is that nobody knows. The oceans of the world are very complex [/quote]

    The fact that the oceans are complex is evidence enough that pollution is going to fuck it up right and proper.

    It's like saying, "well, this clock tower has a lot of gears and cogs. Nobody really knows if throwing a wrench into this sprocket at the bottom'll screw anything up at the top."

    Kazhiim on
    lost_sig2.png
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited January 2007
    Kazhiim wrote:
    [quote=[Tycho?]]
    Hoz wrote:
    If the oceans get too warm how would that affect the overall climate? Would it start an ice age?

    The big problem is that nobody knows. The oceans of the world are very complex

    The fact that the oceans are complex is evidence enough that pollution is going to fuck it up right and proper.

    It's like saying, "well, this clock tower has a lot of gears and cogs. Nobody really knows if throwing a wrench into this sprocket at the bottom'll screw anything up at the top."[/quote]

    In fairness, nature does tend to be self-repairing, given enough of a timeframe. On the other hand, there's no reason that the repaired state would necessarily support human life or civilization.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2007
    Irond Will wrote:

    In fairness, nature does tend to be self-repairing, given enough of a timeframe. On the other hand, there's no reason that the repaired state would necessarily support human life or civilization.

    Yeah, nature isn't self-repairing. It is self-adapting, but that's not the same thing.

    Kazhiim on
    lost_sig2.png
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Zampano wrote:
    #12 Pentagon Plans to Build New Landmines

    Seriously. That is not a good plan.
    I'm D: ing right now. Son of a bitch.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    EstocEstoc Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    article wrote:
    #18 Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story
    Hmmm, I think we're crossing into conspiracy theory on this one.
    I'll read some, and will probably read the rest later, but it does make me wonder if this website has a bias or not.

    Estoc on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2007
    This is why I don't read the news anymore; it's so fucking negative and depressing.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Wylder wrote:
    I dont particularly care about the GM food story. "GM Foods Oh Noez" has been done a few times, and I give it a little bit of credit, but I remain unconvinced pending further evidence which probably wont be available for several generations.

    Yeah, reports like this tend to gloss over the fact that negative symptoms have direct causes. GM crops don't emit magic baby-killing rays; if a strain is harmful that means that there is an issue with a particular combination of genes that can be isolated and corrected in future strains.

    The worst part of it is, all of the examples cited are from cases where issues were identified during testing, preventing the harmful strains from reaching the market. If this is how apparently sucessful testing programs are going to be evaluated by some parts of the media, no wonder they try to keep everything quiet.

    Somewhat more sarcastically, "Oh no, some drugs under development were found to be unsafe during animal testing! Ban all medicine!"

    jothki on
  • Options
    TiemlerTiemler Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Just keep in mind as you peruse these, that one consequence of these stories slipping underneath the mainstream media's radar is, they may not have been subjected to close scrutiny which may have refuted some of the science-related articles in particular.

    A quick Google search turns up counterpoints to refute some of these items, such as the assertion that burning "diesel fuel" in the WTC story. (I presume they mean jet fuel, unless the next urban myth surrounding 9/11 involves Ryder trucks in Hebrew markings being driven into the towers) From a cached Popular Mechanics article...

    "Melted" Steel
    CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolitiot." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.


    Just going around looking for "missed stories" online isn't any more likely to yield a harvest of especially insightful, factual news than poking around Reuters and AP's top stories of the day. You're still getting your news organized for you by someone with an editorial agenda. And you're getting one breathless side of any story represented here. So check out other sources before you flip out.
    Estoc wrote:
    article wrote:
    #18 Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story
    Hmmm, I think we're crossing into conspiracy theory on this one.
    I'll read some, and will probably read the rest later, but it does make me wonder if this website has a bias or not.

    "Controlled Demolition On 9/11" is the anti-(insert group here) equivalent of "Intelligent Design." They're not saying who blew up the WTC, because you can't come right out and say it without people realizing you're pushing an agenda. But you can go for the soft sell, putting enough bad info out there to make people draw their own (your) conclusions.

    Tiemler on
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    I've seen these on Fark occasionally. We tend to run down them and go "know that already; know that; know that; that one's bullshit; I'll give you that one; I'm supposed to trust THAT source?; knew it; Indymedia, seriously, come on now; bullshit; bullshit; know that" all the way down. There's not even a Patented Fark Flamewar about it.

    Observe:
    1- Knew it already; hell, we've debated net neutrality right here on these boards.
    2- Jason Leopold, lemme check him out... okay, I'm REALLY not a fan of his methods, like, at all, and there's an incident where Salon couldn't verify some stuff Leopold wrote. I'm not overly inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
    3- Knew that one.
    4- Well, no shit, when's the last time poverty was considered a sexy issue?
    5- Congo, knew it and Anderson Cooper spent two or three days down there last year.
    6- Knew it. Minor firestorm caused.
    7- Oh, we've assumed AND known that one for a few years now.
    8- That was kind of apparent given the general secretiveness over the entire administration.
    9- Al-Jazeerah? As in, not the controversial-but-respected-by-those-that-actually-look-past-said-controversy Al-Jazeera, but the unrelated and crappy Al-Jazeerah? No thanks.
    10- More civilians dead in Iraq, basically? Tell me something I don't know.
    11- Had that debate before. A lot.
    12- Well, when one of Bush's first acts is to yank our name off the Land Mine Treaty Clinton signed, you have to think this is where the Pentagon's going to go with it.
    13- Roundup, okay, give you that one. Never heard of the source, though, but I guess that's kind of the point.
    14- Knew that one. Knew that one a lot. I barely see a civil liberties flamewar without that coming up.
    15- Kinda knew it. Back of my mind, but I can make the connection given various precedents.
    16- Okay, I'll let you have this one.
    17- No shit, Sherlock.
    18- Heard it. From mainstream sources. Got debunked with relative ease.
    19- Didn't know about that practice and I like to think I'm up on that stuff. Independent is trustworthy, so this one passes.
    20- I can't even find out who this source IS. I don't expect New York Times when we're talking under-reported stories, but I have my limits.
    21- A lobbying agency. Lobbyists are ALWAYS trustworthy!
    22- Knew that.
    23- US attacking Kyoto Protocol. Man, we've known that for years. That's what the US does. That's half of our environmental policy.
    24- Cheney making money from Halliburton? BREAKING NEWS! STOP THE PRESSES!
    25- Considering how elections have been going in the region, bit on the alarmist side. We don't have very many friends down there, and why the hell would we start with Paraguay anyway?

    So out of the 25, just going by me, I'll give them 4, 13, 16 and 19. You probably come up differently, but there you go.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Zampano wrote:
    #12 Pentagon Plans to Build New Landmines

    Seriously. That is not a good plan.

    Can you elaborate on that a little? From what I understand they're trying to come up with a mine that can be easily and reliably disabled/destroyed remotely once peace breaks out which seems like a step in the right directon.


    *edited for accidentally deleting two words and garbling the entire thing*

    HappylilElf on
  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    In the UK at least...

    1. Heavily Covered, multiple sources
    2. Covered
    3. Heavily reported, multiple sources
    4. Unreported to my knowledge
    5. Covered
    6. Covered
    7. Heavily Covered, multiple sources
    8. Unreported to my knowledge
    9. Covered
    10. Heavily Covered, multiple sources (albeit rather swamped by overall 'civilians continue to die in Iraq' meme)
    11. Covered
    12. Covered
    13. Unreported to my knowledge
    14 . Unreported to my knowledge
    15. Covered
    16. Covered
    17. Heavily Covered, multiple sources (albeit rather swamped by overall 'war is all about oil and business interests' meme)
    18. Covered
    19. Unreported to my knowledge
    20. Heavily Covered, multiple sources (albeit rather swamped by overall 'using plastics is bad for enviroment, stop now' meme)
    21. Covered
    22. Covered
    23. Heavily Covered, multiple sources
    24. Heavily Covered, multiple sources (albeit rather swamped by overall 'US government officials and business' winning contracts from the war' meme)
    25. Covered

    So in the UK at least

    5/25 not reported to the level that I didnt know very much about them. 4/5 of these are all very US centric issues like the Roundup problems and the prison building. Im sure with a bit more news awareness I would have seen coverage of them. The only exception is the rainforest one, however there has been extensive coverage of economic development in South America and the enviromental issues which pertain to it.

    12/25 covered to the extent that I was well aware of them.

    8/25 covered extensively, often as part of large multiple day debates into related issues in the news. These were all discussed and covered on multiple networks, on multiple days, through multiple media.

    So considering the highly US centric aspects of the news that was missing from the coverage and the highly dubious nature of the accuracy of some of the stories (GM foods, physicist about 9-11) a good majority have recieved extensive coverage. Not just people saying "this is true of course" but newsreaders reporting on the story.

    Honestly this list is a bit silly. True you could not be aware of some of these issues, like increased air casulties in Iraq, but only because the news spent so much time talking about the overall increased civilian casulties!

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    BrainleechBrainleech 機知に富んだコメントはここにあります Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    I heard about the Gm food scare during the summer from a group that was protesting or rally I cannot figure out which it was at a farmer's market

    The Bottled Water Scare is a well duh report

    The Congo Genocide is intresting to look up and read on other sites


    I have to agree why
    #2 Halliburton Charged with Selling Nuclear Technologies to Iran
    WHY? I know it's captialism is what went on but why?


    And finally Roundup Since it deals with grass which tends to be a Cam3 type of plant
    it's a easy type of chemical to isolate but with gm plants absoring the chemical and the plants they did not have a hand in making is intresting allthough scary

    Brainleech on
  • Options
    DynagripDynagrip Break me a million hearts HoustonRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2007
    3lwap0 wrote:
    Hoz wrote:
    I'm choosing to ignore everything I just read on that page because it's so god damned depressing.

    QFT. I'm gonna go cry myself to sleep now.
    Yeah, I'm actually tearing up. Shit.

    Dynagrip on
  • Options
    Juergen HubertJuergen Hubert Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    Estoc wrote:
    article wrote:
    #18 Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story
    Hmmm, I think we're crossing into conspiracy theory on this one.
    I'll read some, and will probably read the rest later, but it does make me wonder if this website has a bias or not.

    I'm not buying that one, either. There's just no reason that there is a government cover-up about how that tragedy took place.

    Juergen Hubert on
    UrbisBanner.jpg
  • Options
    DynagripDynagrip Break me a million hearts HoustonRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2007
    Uh...this is ominous...
    Five hundred U.S. troops arrived in Paraguay with planes, weapons, and ammunition in July 2005, shortly after the Paraguayan Senate granted U.S. troops immunity from national and International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction. Neighboring countries and human rights organizations are concerned that the massive air base at Mariscal Estigarribia, Paraguay is potential real estate for the U.S. military.

    While U.S. and Paraguayan officials vehemently deny ambitions to establish a U.S. military base at Mariscal Estigarribia, the ICC immunity agreement and U.S. counterterrorism training exercises have increased suspicions that the U.S. is building a stronghold in a region that is strategic to resource and military interests.

    The Mariscal Estigarribia air base is within 124 miles of Bolivia and Argentina, and 200 miles from Brazil, near the Triple Frontier where Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina meet. Bolivia’s natural gas reserves are the second largest in South America, while the Triple Frontier region is home to the Guarani Aquifer, one of the world’s largest fresh water sources. (See Story #20.)

    Not surprisingly, U.S. rhetoric is building about terrorist threats in the triborder region. Dangl reports claims by Defense officials that Hezbollah and Hamas, radical Islamic groups from the Middle East, receive significant funding from the Triple Frontier, and that growing unrest in this region could leave a political “black hole” that would erode other democratic efforts. Dangl notes that in spite of frequent attempts to link terror networks to the triborder area, there is little evidence of a connection.

    Dynagrip on
Sign In or Register to comment.