Project Censored's Top 25 Stories for 1999

Criticism marked this year's release of Sonoma State University's (California) Project Censored's list of stories. With Project Censored in its 24th year, objections concerning the choice of stories and how they were chosen are nothing new. Every year the use of the term "censored" comes under fire because some of the stories that make the annual list were reported in mainstream media outlets. Project Censored answers that charge by pointing out that the "essential issue raised by the project is the failure of the mass media to provide" the public with all the information needed to make informed decisions in their lives or in the voting booth.

This year, however, criticism has been particularly intense, but not from avenues readers would expect -- the corporate media or conservative politicians. In rather typical form, journalists and academics with a left, liberal, or progressive bent (take your pick) have slammed Project Censored for misrepresenting the stories as having been censored, for picking stories that contain factual errors, or for simply offering the public a topic that is no longer relevant considering the onset of the Internet and its myriad of informational sources.

MoJo Wire, the online adjunct to Mother Jones magazine, recently posted an article titled "The Unbearable Lameness of Project Censored." In it, writer Brooke Shelby Biggs called Project Censored "predictable and boring," though that isn't the project's biggest problem. "It's also become irrelevant, laughable, and cheesy." Biggs wrote that Project Censored no longer ranks high on the "no shit" scale in terms of surprising readers with stories they had never read or heard of. Interestingly, Mother Jones is included in this year's censored list, as it has been in previous years.

Dan Kennedy, a writer for The Boston Phoenix, recounted the Project Censored controversy with a piece titled "Fire on the Left." The two principals in this squabble are Don Hazen, executive director of the Institute for Media Independence, which operates the Alternet news wire used by many so-called alternative publications, and Bruce Brugmann, editor and publisher of the San Francisco Bay Guardian. Much of this row between the two alternative press heavyweights centers around Diana Johnstone's article (#6 on the censored list) about how oil exploitation played a role in NATO's war against Serbia, and Karl Grossman's "Planned Weapons in Space Violate International Treaty" piece on the militarization of space (#8). Hazen levels charges of poor reporting and a hidden agenda on the part of both writers. Brugmann says Hazen never bothered to contact the writers he's criticizing for comment or to search out the facts he says were distorted or omitted.

How this quarrel affects next year's list is anybody's guess. Both sides score points with impartial observers -- if such a thing exists in the realm of alternative journalism when it comes to Project Censored. In the end, it's up to readers to form an opinion. Here's Project Censored's 1999 list of "little known" -- for want of another name -- stories. Editing was done by yours truly. -- Bruce Rodgers #1 Multinational Corporations Profit from International Brutality
Title: "Corporation Crackdowns: Business Backs Brutality"
Source: Dollars and Sense, May/June 1999
Author: Arvind Ganesan

In the name of commerce, huge multinational corporations collaborate with repressive governments and, in the process, support significant human rights violations. The U.S. government knows about these human rights abuses but continues to provide support and funding. In countries with histories of repression, corporations often argue that their presence and investment will improve human rights. This practice is referred to as "constructive engagement." A look at the actions of multinational corporations over the past five years shows that constructive engagement with undemocratic governments is basically a myth.

In March 1998, the U.S. State Department ignored its own report on human rights abuses in Turkmenistan by providing a $96 million award from the Export-Import Bank to four U.S. companies selling natural gas and other equipment to the country. Any Export-Import loan of over $10 million requires the State Department to conduct a human rights impact assessment to determine whether the loan may give rise to significant human rights concerns.

Turkmenistan, a major human rights violator, also possesses some of the largest oil and gas reserves in Central Asia. President Saparmurad Niyazov rules the country with an iron fist, suppressing independent media and political opposition. Yet such companies as Mobil, Exxon, and Royal Dutch Shell openly operate there. When Niyazov visited President Clinton in April 1998, the U.S. government's Trade and Development Administration awarded Houston-based Enron a $750,000 grant to conduct a pipeline feasibility study for a proposed $2.8 billion pipeline in Turkmenistan. After the deal was signed, the White House issued a press release stating that Turkmenistan is committed to free and fair elections, strengthening the rule of law, and political pluralism in accordance with international standards. Yet, when reporters asked Niyazov about the government's attitude toward opposition parties, he replied, "We do not have any opposition parties -- you are ill-informed." The U.S. officials stated that they had discussed human rights issues privately with Niyazov and that the State Department had secured the release of 10 political prisoners, citing this as an example of improvement in human rights.