Top Ten Censored Stories of 2003-2004
By Deanna Zandt and Evan Derkacz, AlterNet
In Minot, N.D., in 2002, a train derailed at 1:30am spilling 200,000 gallons of deadly gas. All six commercial radio stations in the area were owned by Clear Channel, and all six were fully automated. As a result, the stations weren't switched over to the emergency broadcasting frequency and the news wasn't properly disseminated to the local population. One man who tried to get in his car died; others suffered burns or were partially blinded. It was an hour and a half before officials could finally get a hold of anyone at the station to broadcast the emergency alert.
This incident, reported last year as one of Project Censored's top censored stories of 2002-2003, offers a window into the larger problem of media consolidation wherein corporations, eager to cut costs, and loathe to disturb the interests of those in power, have already eaten up most of the media landscape. In the process they've neglected some of the most crucial information the American citizenry needs in order for our democracy to survive. Though an unprecedented number of concerned citizens spoke out against the recent attempt by the FCC to further deregulate the media, we've already seen the number of bold, independent-minded, Watergate-type stories diminish in frequency with each passing year.
On a more personal level, how often do you find yourself sitting at dinner, on the bus, at work across from your pro-Bush uncle, acquaintance, or boss, referring to a story that didn't get the coverage it warranted? You frantically Google it but more often than not, if you find it at all, it's far too late to make your point. And for most Americans, the simple fact that it didn't make the nightly news is evidence of its dubiousness.
Each year, in response to these concerns, Project Censored creates a list of its top "censored" stories of the year. Though it might more accurately be called "Project Not-Mentioned-Enough," the list does provide crucial facts and perspectives that every citizen ought to know before stepping into a voting booth. It might also help with those friendly debates if you remember to pass it around to acquaintances, bosses and your Republican uncle.
1. Wealth inequality in 21st century threatens economy and democracy.
The corporate media's coverage of "the economy" is usually restricted to the rolling hills of the stock market, fluctuating rates of "consumer spending," or corporations' quarterly profit reports. Seldom is there any discussion of the distribution of these indicators of the national purse. Were the gap between the rich and poor to be a part of the discussion, the nightly news' numbers would tell the story of an America few would recognize.
Edward Wolff, a professor of economics at New York University points out that while wealth inequality ("wealth" is defined as assets and income minus debt) fell from 1929 through 1976 or so, it has risen sharply since then. As it stood in 1998, the wealthiest 5% of this nation owned more (59%) than the other 95% put together. And that's well before Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy were even a glimmer in the neoconservative eye. In fact, when compared to the egalitarian promised land of Sweden, up until the early 1970s the U.S. had a lower wealth inequality.
Break it down along "racial" lines and the inequality bloats. Black families, while earning 60% of what white families earn, possess only 18% of the wealth.
And should you not have any ethical problems with this inequality, recent studies provide reasons for even number-crunchers to worry. Wolff explains: "There is now a lot of evidence, based on cross-national comparisons of inequality and economic growth, that more unequal societies actually have lower rates of economic growth." It boils down to this: Inequality leads to poor schooling for the majority who in turn mature into a less capable, less ambitious, and less talented pool of workers than many other nations' kids whose systems provide an adequate education to all.
This is a recent and reversible phenomenon, according to David Cay Johnston, a Pulitzer-prize winning New York Times reporter. He comments on the media's mistaken treatment of "think tanks" as intellectual institutions instead of as "ideological marketing organizations" that "favor the super-rich."
Johnston challenges another cherished media myth: "Most Americans believe we take from people at the top to benefit those below. And what I show in (my) book from the data is that's not the case. Our national myth – and I use that in the classic sense of the word "myth" – is wrong. We take from people who make $30,000 to $500,000 to give relief to those, who make millions, or tens and hundreds of millions of dollars a year."
This trend is mirrored across the globe where one in six people lives in slums. UN-habitat estimates that, if governments don't work to remedy the situation, "a third of the world's population will be slum dwellers within 30 years... unplanned, unsanitary settlements threaten both political and fiscal stability within third world countries, where urban slums are growing faster than expected." Or: While we fight the "war on terror" we are neglecting a much greater threat to world stability; poverty.

MULTINATIONAL MONITOR, May 2003, Vol. 24, No. 5 Title: "The Wealth Divide" (An interview with Edward Wolff) Author: Robert Weissman
BUZZFLASH, March 26 and 29, 2004
Title: "A Buzzflash Interview, Parts I & II" (with David Cay Johnston) Author: Buzzflash Staff
LONDON GUARDIAN, October 4, 2003
Title: "Every third person will be a slum dweller within 30 years, UN agency warns" Author: John Vidal
MULTINATIONAL MONITOR, July/August, 2003