<p>The basic premise of Project Censored is that the mass media have failed
to provide the public with all the information it needs to succeed and
prosper as a society.</p>
<p>While the United States may have a free press and the most sophisti-cated communications system in the world, unfortunately a free press and
high technology do not guarantee a well-informed society.</p>
<p>The problem is not the quantity of information, which sometimes reaches
an overload level, but the quality of information. For example, when
something starts to go wrong in your personal life, there generally are
some warning signals that alert you to the problem. If you are a
rational person, you normally would act upon that information in an
effort to solve the problem.</p>
<p>So too, it is with a society. When a problem arises, there should be a
warning signal -- information-- that alerts the citizens that something
is wrong which needs attention and resolution. An aware and informed
populace could then influence its leaders to act upon that information
in an effort to solve the problem. This, unfortunately, is not the case
in the United States as we are becoming abundantly aware during these
difficult times.</p>
<p>I would suggest that a systematic omission of news about significant
issues in our major news media has led to a dangerously distorted
picture of America in the late 20th Century. This false picture of
society, while perhaps reassuring to, or even desired by, an elite group
in our society, represents a festering sore that must be treated if we
are to survive as a nation.</p>
<p>To understand how this situation has come about in a society with a free
press that mass produces information, we must understand how the flow
of information is controlled.</p>
<p>In totalitarian societies, we find outright, overt censorship. The
state, through its bureaucracy, determines what can or cannot be said or
printed and maintains its control of the information flow through a
monopoly on the means of production of the information industry. The
massive coverup of the Chernobyl disaster by Communist leaders is a
classic example of this form of censorship. In late 1991, a
parliamentary commission, chaired by Volodymyr Yavorivsky, revealed
that in April 1986 Soviet authorities reacted to the Chernobyl nuclear
power accident with "a total lie, falsehoods, coverup and concealment"
which led to thousands of deaths.</p>
<p>In societies perceived as free, we find the information output deter-mined by economic pressures to produce corporate profits, by a system-atic distribution of "punishment and reward" to workers in the media,
and by a less obvious, but nonetheless effective, control of the means
of production of the information industry. The latter is
well-documented in Ben Bagdikian's book "The Media Monopoly."</p>
<p>In both cases, the efforts to manipulate and control the flow of
information are successful -- whether by overt censorship or by covert
censorship. The crucial difference is that the citizens in a
totalitarian society are aware that their information is controlled
and manipulated and they conduct their lives with that knowledge.</p>
<p>However, the citizens of a free society, such as the United States, want
to believe the mass media provide them with a fair, objective, and
uncensored report of what is happening in the world around them and thus
are lulled into a false sense of being well-informed.</p>
<p>Project Censored Launched</p>
<p>In 1976, concerned about increasing social problems and public apa-thy, I launched a national research effort, called Project Censored, to
explore whether there really is a systematic omission of certain issues
in our national news media. My quest was specifically stimulated by
personal bewilderment over how the American people could elect Richard
Nixon by a landslide after Watergate, one of the most sensational
political crimes of the century.</p>
<p>Project Censored is now an international media research project in its
16th year. By exploring and publicizing stories on important issues
that have been overlooked or underreported by the news media, the
project seeks to stimulate journalists and editors to provide more mass
media coverage of those issues. It also hopes to encourage the general
public to seek out and demand more information on those issues.</p>
<p>Since its start, the research project has generated queries for more
information about the project as well as about individual stories from
journalists, scholars, and concerned people throughout the world. It
has been described variously as a tip sheet for investigative television
programs like "60 Minutes" and " 20/20,' ' as a distant early warning
system for society's problems, and even as a "moral force" in American
media. In 1988, the national Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication cited the project for "providing a new model for
media criticism for journalism education." Project Censored was the
model for Bay Area Censored, a regional research effort that calls
attention to the most important San Francisco Bay Area stories that the
local media under-report or ignore. Bay Area Censored, now in its third
year, is sponsored by the Media Alliance, a San Francisco-based
organization of journalists.</p>
<p>The Project director has been cited by the Giraffe Project for "sticking
his neck out for the common good; " been honored with the Media Alli-ance Meritorious Achievement Award in the "Unimpeachable of the annual
Freedom of Information Award from the Society of Professional
Journalists, in Los Angeles; and was named the "Outstanding Journalism
Teacher of 1991" at the four-year college level by the California
Newspaper Publishers Association.</p>
<p>Despite its growing impact and recognition, the Project has largely been
ignored by the major news media in the United States, which,
incidentally, are not known for their inclination to accept and evaluate
criticism. Supporters of Project Censored regularly nominate the pro-ject itself as a top "censored' ' story of the year. This may be
changing, however. The Project's first major national media recognition
occurred in February, 1991,when it was the subject of an hour-long
documentary on PBS-TV, hosted by Bill Moyers.</p>
<p>Information about securing a copy of the videotape, titled "Moyers:
Project Censored," is available from Public Affairs Television, 356 West
58th St., New York, NY 10019, (212/560-6961).</p>
<p>The Censored Research Process</p>
<p>Researchers in the censorship seminar I teach at Sonoma State University
have reviewed thousands of stories over the past 16 years that many
Americans have not seen or heard about. The stories are nominated
annually by journalists, scholars, librarians, and the general public
from throughout the United States and abroad.</p>
<p>We then select the top 25 stories according to a number of criteria in-cluding the amount of coverage the story received, the importance of the
issue, the reliability of the source, and the potential impact the story
may have. Next, the top 25 "censored" stories are submitted in synopsis
form to a panel of judges who select the top ten stories of the year.</p>
<p>A review of the project to date reveals that the major news media do
systematically overlook, ignore, or distort certain subjects. The most
under-reported category of ignored subjects deals with political or gov-ernmental issues ranging from regulatory agencies to foreign
political/ military involvement to the presidency. The second leading
category of stories deals with business and economic issues or what some
call "corporate crime. " The third-ranked subject area concerns dangers
to an individual's health, whether from poisonous pesticides or
pharmaceutical malfeasance or low-level radiation. Other leading
subjects often under covered by the mainstream press include civil and
human rights, the military, and the environment.</p>
<p>Why Are Some Issues Overlooked?</p>
<p>One of the questions often asked is why doesn't the press cover the
issues raised by Project Censored. The failure of the news media to
cover critical and sometimes controversial issues consistently and in
depth is not, as some say, a conspiracy on the part of the media elite.
News is too diverse, fast-breaking, and unpredictable to be controlled
by some sinister conservative eastern establishment media cabal.</p>
<p>However, there are a variety of factors operating that, when combined,
lead to the systematic failure of the news media to fully inform the
public. While it is not an overt form of censorship, such as the kind
we observe in some other societies, it is nonetheless real and often
equally dangerous.</p>
<p>The media's explanations for censorship are plentiful. Sometimes a
source for a story isn't considered to be reliable; other times the
story doesn't have an easily identifiable "beginning, middle, and end;"
some stories are considered to be "too complex" for the general public;
on occasion stories are ignored because they haven't been "blessed" by
The New York Times or The Washington Post. Reporters and editors at
most of the other 1650 daily newspapers know their news judgment isn't
going to be challenged when they produce the-leader" stories, a practice
which leads to the "pack" or "herd" phenomenon in journalism.</p>
<p>Another major factor contributing to media self-censorship is that the
story is considered potentially libelous. There is no question that
long and costly jury trials, and sometimes large judgments against the
media, have produced a massive chilling effect on the press and replaced
copy editors with copy attorneys.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, the bottom line explanation for much of the censorship
found in the mainstream media is the media's own bottom line. Corpo-rate media perceive their primary responsibility is to maximize profits,
not, as some would have it, to inform the public. Many of the stories
cited by Project Censored are not in the best financial interests of
publishers, owners, stockholders, or advertisers. Equally important,
investigative journalism is more expensive than the traditional public
stenographers school of journalism. And, of course, there is always the
"don't rock the boat" mentality which pervades corporate media
boardrooms.</p>
<p>Jonathan Alter, media columnist for Newsweek, suggests an additional
reason for the lack of coverage given some issues. According to Alter,
some stories are not covered because they do not fit conventional
definitions of news. This, of course, is why I suggest it is time for
journalism to rethink its traditional definitions of news. In a time of
pending economic doom, nuclear terrorism, and environmental disaster,
it is not news when a man bites a dog.</p>
<p>Real news is not repetitive, sensationalistic coverage of
non-important events such as the William Kennedy Smith Palm Beach trial
which attracted so much media attention in 1991.</p>
<p>By contrast, real news is objective and reliable information about
important events happening in a society. And I suggest that the
widespread dissemination of such information will help people become
better informed and that a better informed public will elect
politicians who are more responsive to people's needs.</p>
<p>A Smoking Gun! People Magazine Censors Bohemian Grove Story</p>
<p>Critics of Project Censored, who deny there is such a thing as media
self-censorship, often ask for "smoking gun" examples. Then, when
provided with such examples, they too often merely ignore them. None-theless, here's another example, excerpted from an article I wrote for
Fine Line, The Newsletter On Journalism Ethics, "Project Censored,
Sins of Omission and The Hardest 'W' of all -- Why," November/ December
1991 .</p>
<p>Perhaps the most blatant recent example of media self-censorship, and
media denial, is an incident which occurred during the summer of 1991.
The Bohemian Grove encampment, which draws the cream of America's male
power elite -- including press moguls -- to northern California each
year, is one of the media's best known, best kept secrets.</p>
<p>Dirk Mathison, San Francisco bureau chief for People Magazine at the
time, managed to surreptitiously infiltrate the encampment in search of
a good story. And he got it. He recorded a variety of newsworthy
items, including a previously unpublicized Gulf War Iraqi casualty
count of 200000 as reported to the Bohemian Club members by former
Navy Secretary John Lehman. Unfortunately, Mathison was spotted by a
Time Inc. executive and quietly ordered to leave.</p>
<p>The article, which Mathison said was scheduled to run for four pages,
was suddenly killed. When I asked Lanny Jones, managing editor of
People Magazine, whether the fact that Time Inc. owns People had
anything to do with killing the story, he said no. Since his magazine
had obtained the story by illegal trespass, he said, running it would
have been unethical.</p>
<p>Think about it. People Magazine -- pleading ethics to explain why it
spiked a story the American people should hear!</p>
<p>When I took exception to Jones' response, he asked me what I would have
done without violating the publication's guidelines. I said, at the
very least, I'd have Mathison write a straight news article describing
exactly what happened -- how he gained access to the Bohemian Grove,
what he heard there, and why he was told to leave. Jones said it was a
good idea and he'd think about it. That was August 6, 1991.</p>
<p>The People Magazine/Bohemian Grove story of self-censorship is a classic
example of the dangers Ben Bagdikian warns about in Media Monopoly. If
People Magazine were not part of the Time Inc. media empire, it is
doubtful that the story would have been spiked.</p>
<p>Would It Make Any Difference?</p>
<p>Finally, there is yet another question that is often asked about the
project. Would it really make any difference if the press were to
provide more coverage for the kinds of stories cited by Project
Censored?</p>
<p>The answer is very simple: yes.</p>
<p>First, there is the issue of a lack of public interest. Critics of
Project Censored say that the media give the public what it wants, i.e.
"junk food news," because the people are not interested in reading about
the issues raised by Project Censored. We counter that by saying,
Unfortunately, unaware of alternatives, the people will read or watch
what the mass media produce. However, we suggest that it is the media's
responsibility, as watchdogs of society, to explore, compile, and
present information people should know about in a way that will attract
their attention and be relevant to their everyday lives. And, when the
media do this, the people will read and respond to the issues raised.</p>
<p>An example of what the press can do when it takes its responsibilities
seriously is provided by one of 1991's top 25 stories -- "Voodoo
Economics: The Untold Story" (#3). Authors Donald Barlett and James
Steele, and their newspaper, The Philadelphia Inquirer, invested the
time, energy, and money to produce an extraordinarily informative series
of articles on a very complex and normally uninteresting subject -- the
economy. Within hours of the first installment of the series, the
Inquirer started to receive requests for reprints. Altogether the
newspaper distributed more than 225000 free reprints. One reader
wanted 535 copies -- one to distribute to each member of Congress.</p>
<p>There is, indeed, a genuine desire on the part of people to know more
about issues that affect them. But then, the next question is, would it
make any difference if the people were better informed?</p>
<p>Hunger in Africa was consistently nominated as a "censored" subject
during the early 1980s. When I would ask journalists why they did not
cover the tragedy unfolding there, they would say: " It is not news, "
or, "Everyone already knows about starving Africans," or "Nothing can be
done about it anyway.''</p>
<p>Early in 1984, an ABC-TV News correspondent in Rome came upon
information that led him to believe that millions of lives were being
threatened by drought and famine in Africa. He asked the home office in
New York for permission to take his crew to Africa to get the story.
The answer was no.</p>
<p>(There's an ironic twist to this story. I subsequently discovered who
it was at ABC that refused to let the network's TV crew go to Africa in
1984. It was Rick Kaplan, who later became executive producer of Ted
Koppel's "Nightline." And, in mid-1986, it was the same Rick Kaplan
who killed a two-part "Nightline" series on Project Censored which was
going to explore whether the news media ever overlook, undercover, or
censor important stories.)</p>
<p>ABC-TV News was not the only, nor even the first, television network to
reject the tragic story of starving children in Ethiopia. In October,
1983, David Kline, a free-lance journalist and news producer in San
Francisco, shot film on assignment for CBS showing emaciated adults and
some children near death. According to a Columbia Journalism Review
article, one of the children in Kline's footage was so thin that its
heart could be seen beating through the chest wall. Nonetheless, Kline
was told the footage was not strong enough. After being rejected by
CBS, Kline offered to do the story for NBC and PBS and they both turned
him down. Nor were the television networks the only media not
interested in a story about millions of people facing death. Kline also
offered the story to a number of magazines including Life, Playboy, The
New Yorker, Esquire, Harper's, and Mother Jones, all of whom rejected
it. Only the Christian Science Monitor ran Kline's piece.</p>
<p>Later, as we all now know, a BBC television crew, traveling through
Ethiopia, captured the stark reality of children starving to death.
People throughout the world saw the coverage and responded.
Overnight, it sparked a world-wide reaction that reportedly saved the
lives of seven million Ethiopians.</p>
<p>Indeed, the media can make a difference.</p>
<p>The press has the power to stimulate people to clean up the environ-ment; to prevent nuclear proliferation; to force crooked politicians
out of office; to reduce poverty; to provide quality health care for
all people; to create a truly equitable society; and, as we have seen,
to literally save the lives of millions of human beings.</p>
<p>Project Censored Judges Of 1991</p>
<p>One of the most difficult challenges of Project Censored is to select
the top ten "censored" stories from among the 25 top nominations. This
responsibility falls to our distinguished national panel of judges who
volunteer their efforts. Perhaps one of the greatest tributes to the
project is that some of our judges, identified with asterisks below,
have participated in Project Censored every year since selecting the
first group of "best censored stories" of 1976. We are indebted to the
following judges who selected the top ten "censored" stories of 1991.</p>
<p>Dr. Donna Allen, founding editor of Media Report to Women;</p>
<p>Ben Bagdikian,* Professor Emeritus, Graduate School of Journalism, UC-Berkeley;</p>
<p>Richard Barnet, Senior Fellow, Institute for Policy Studies;</p>
<p>Noam Chomsky,* professor, Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT;</p>
<p>Dr. George Gerbner, professor, Annenberg School of Communications,
University of Pennsylvania;</p>
<p>Nicholas Johnson, * professor, College of Law, University of Iowa;</p>
<p>Rhoda H. Karpatkin, executive director, Consumers Union;</p>
<p>Charles L. Klotzer, editor and publisher, St. Louis Journalism
Review;</p>
<p>Judith Krug, director, Office for Intellectual Freedom, American
Library Association;</p>
<p>Frances Moore Lappe, co-founder and co-director, Institute for the Arts
of Democracy;</p>
<p>William Lutz, professor, English, Rutgers University, and editor of The
Quarterly Review of Doublespeak;</p>
<p>Robert C. Maynard, editor and publisher, Oakland Tribune;</p>
<p>Jack L. Nelson, * professor, Graduate School of Education, Rutgers
University;</p>
<p>Tom Peters, nationally syndicated columnist on excellence;</p>
<p>Herbert 1. Schiller, Professor Emeritus of Communication, UC-San Diego;</p>
