A List of Media Where the ‘News’ Is Censored — And Where It’s Not

Eric Zuesse

——

A good test of the extent to which a given news-medium censors out news that the aristocracy (especially the people who control international corporations — the people who possess the ultimate authority to determine where the big advertising-dollars are spent) don’t want the public to know, is to submit important news reports to them on a regular basis, to find out which media will publish it — which ones will, and which won’t, publish a major and rigorously researched news story that reports something all (or virtually all) major advertisers want the public not to know. A news-story that exposes a fundamental lie ‘justifying’ a major U.S. foreign policy is of precisely this sort.

The following news-story of this type was submitted to all major mainstream and “alternative news” news sites, including the following; and only the nine that are shown here boldfaced-underlined (and linked, so that you can check out those honest ones by just a click) actually published it (the story you’ll see below); the others did not:

ABC

AP

Alternet

American Prospect

Asia Times

Black Agenda

Blacklisted News

Bloomberg

Business Insider

CBS

CNN

Commentary

Common Dreams

Consortium News Service

Countercurrents

Counterpunch

Daily Kos

Daily Mail

Democracy Now

Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten

Dissident Voice

Drudge Report

Empty Wheel

Euractiv

Eurasianet

Euronews

Eurosif

FAIR

Financial Times

Foreign Policy

Fort Russ

Global Research

Greanville Post

Hampton Institute

Harper’s

Huffington Post

In These Times

InfoWars

InformationClearingHouse

Institute for Policy Studies

Lapham Quarterly

MSNBC

McClatchy

Media Matters

Mother Jones

NBC

NPR

Naked Capitalism

National Interest

National Memo

National Post

National Review

New Cold War

New Statesman

New Yorker

Newshour

Off-Guardian

Oriental Review

PBS

Paul Craig Roberts

Politico

Prison Planet

Raw Story

RINF

Rolling Stone

Russia Insider

Salon

Slate

Smirking Chimp

Sojourners

Spiegel

TIME

The Atlantic

The Daily Beast

The Guardian

The Independent

The Intercept

The Nation

The New Republic

The New York Times

The Peoples Voice

The Progressive

The Young Turk

TheAntiMedia

Thom Hartmann

Truthout

Wall Street Journal

Washington Post

Washingtonsblog

Zerohedge

Here was the news report:

——

Polls Show Syrians Overwhelmingly Blame U.S. for ISIS

Eric Zuesse

The British polling organization ORB International, an affiliate of WIN/Gallup International, repeatedly finds in Syria that, throughout the country, Syrians oppose ISIS by about 80%, and (in the latest such poll) also finds that 82% of Syrians blame the U.S. for ISIS.

The Washington Post  summarized on September 15th the latest poll. They did not headline it with the poll’s anti-U.S. finding, such as “82% of Syrians Blame U.S. for ISIS.” That would have been newsworthy. Instead, their report’s headline was “One in five Syrians say Islamic State is a good thing, poll says.” However, the accompanying graphic wasn’t focused on the few Syrians who support ISIS (and, at only one in five, that’s obviously not much — it’s hardly even news). It instead (for anyone who would read beyond that so-what headline) provided a summary of what Syrians actually do support. This is is what their graphic highlighted from the poll’s findings:

82% agree “IS [Islamic State] is US and foreign made group.”

79% agree “Foreign fighters made war worse.”

70% agree “Oppose division of country.”

65% agree “Syrians can live together again.”

64% agree “Diplomatic solution possible.”

57% agree “Situation is worsening.”

51% agree “Political solution best answer.”

49% agree “Oppose US coalition air strikes.”

22% agree “IS is a positive influence.”

21% agree “Prefer life now than under Assad.”

Here are the more detailed findings in this poll, a poll that was taken of 1,365 Syrians from all 14 governates within Syria.

The finding that 22% agree that “IS is a positive influence” means that 78% do not  agree with that statement. Since 82% do agree that “IS is US and foreign made group,” Syrians are clearly anti-American, by overwhelming majorities: they blame the U.S. for something that they clearly (by 78%) consider to be not  “a positive influence.”

Here is the unfortunately amateurish (even undated) press release from ORB International, reporting their findings, and it links directly to the full pdf of their poll-results, “Syria Public Opinion – July 2015”. Though their press-operation is amateurish, their polling itself definitely is not. WIN/Gallup is, instead, the best polling-operation that functions in Syria, which is obviously an extremely difficult environment.

WIN/Gallup and ORB International had previously released a poll of Syria, on 8 July 2014, which reported that, at that time, “three in five (60%) of the population would support ‘international military involvement in Syria’. In government controlled regions this drops to 11% (Tartus), 36% (Damascus) and rises in those areas currently largely controlled by the opposition – Al Raqqah (82%), Aleppo (61%), Idlib (88%).” In other words: The regions that were controlled by Islamic jihadists (Sunnis who are backed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United States) were, a year ago, overwhelmingly wanting “international military involvement in Syria.” They wanted to be saved from ISIS. Government-controlled regions didn’t feel the need for international involvement. Syrians were, apparently, at that time expecting “international military involvement” to be anti-jihadist, not pro-jihadist, as it turned out to be (which is the reason why the current poll is finding rampant anti-Americanism there).

This earlier poll further found that, “There is also evidence to suggest that Bashar al-Assad’s position is strengthened from a year ago.”

So, apparently, the more that the war has continued, the more opposed to the U.S. the Syrian people have become, and the more that they are supporting Bashar al-Assad, whom the Syrian people know that the U.S. is trying to bring down.

Also on September 15th, Russian Television issued a video of their interview in Damascus of President Assad. Unfortunately, most of it is in Russian, and without subscripts. However, parts of it are in English, and this interview does provide English-speakers an opportunity to hear him speak, unmoderated by Western media.

UPDATE: To see how the U.S. major media have been covering this issue, a good example of that is here.

——

NOTE: The list of ‘news’ media that have blocked their audience from seeing any news reports similar to this, includes all (except 10 that will now be listed here) that are not boldfaced-underlined, all sites but the 9 that published this news report (and those 10 others). Those 9 must be considered to be the least-censored of all news sites. This news-report contradicts the propaganda-line that the Western press pump, the lie to the effect that the enemies of ISIS are the U.S.-led coalition (basically, the U.S. and the royals of Saudi Arabia and Qatar), not Bashar al-Assad and his allies (Russia and Iran). This truth — that the U.S. is waging war actually against Russia and its allies such as Syria, even more than it is waging war against ISIS, and that Russia and its allies are actually the ones which are trying to end ISIS — is heavily censored-out by Western ‘news’ media.

The following 10 ones of the abovelisted media have, on occasion, run other  news reports that I have submitted to them that have been similar to this one in being banned and generally suppressed by aristocrats: Blacklisted News, Common Dreams, Counterpunch, Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten, Huffington Post, InfoWars, Information Clearing House, Oriental Review, Oximity, Zerohedge. Even a non-censored site won’t necessarily be publishing everything  that it receives that the individuals who control the major international corporations are wishing to be hushed-up.

Those 10, plus the 9 that published the news report just shown here (which 9 sites are the least-censored sites of all), may reasonably be considered to be the only 19 news sites that are not censored (or else not totally censored) by the international aristocracy.

The 9 least-censored sites are not at all censored by the aristocracy; the other 10 are less-uncensored, though at least partly uncensored. Those 10 might be considered to be in a middle category.

All of the other sites (virtually the entirety of the Western ‘news’ media) are rigidly censored by the international aristocracy. Their ‘news’ is propaganda, especially whenever the focus of a given news-report is on international relations.

For example, when the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it was because both the U.S. Government and the U.S. aristocracy (who also control the press) did not want the public to know the truth, and so the public could be fooled into believing that Saddam Hussein constituted a threat to the United States. The same mechanism (of a lying government and press) still functions today, except at a small minority of rather small news-media, ones which are not controlled by (or else not totally  beholden to) aristocrats, or else by people whose main aim is to satisfy  aristocrats.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Business / Economics, General, Media, Politics / World News, propaganda and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • USA_objector

    Hey, Eric — GREAT article. By the way, Infowars did run a piece on the Syrian poll, so you should update the article accordingly.
    http://www.infowars.com/poll-over-80-percent-of-syrians-believe-us-created-isis/

    • Brockland A.T.

      Infowars.com
      and Prisonplanet.com both belong to Alex Jones, and Prison Planet is in bold. Usually they have the same content.

      • cettel

        I know that. However, Prison Planet published my article but InfoWars didn’t. So, I included InfoWars in the middle grouping. If InfoWars had also ppublished my article, I would have been able to include InfoWars in the top group. However, InfoWars is committed to the suppression of the overwhelming evidence that global warming exists; it’s got its own censorship, which accepts some of my articles but rejects the ones that report the latest evidence on global warming. In this regard, they are the opposite of Huffington Post, which allows my articles about global warming but excludes my articles on Ukraine and on Syria.

        If I were to restrict the top list to only scientifically selective uncensored sites, there would be far fewer than 9. Far fewer than 9 sites are entirely honest; and all of them are very small-audience sites, such as this one.

        • USA_objector

          Eric, Infowars DID publish the report. (See my link above.) Also, the ever-reliable ZeroHedge.com also published an article on the Syrian poll. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-19/81-syrians-believe-us-blame-isis (It wasn’t your article, but they did cover the topic.)

          Re: Global Warming, Infowars is concerned about the Maurice Strong and Agenda 21 aspects of AGW to the use of Global Warming as a weapon to suppress world populations and further impose government restrictions on personal liberties. And while Global Warming / Climate Change is on the front pages of the mainstream media you’ve (rightly) criticized in your excellent article above, Fukushima is the ELE — extinction-level event — that is THE five-alarm environmental disaster of our time and requires IMMEDIATE action.

          • X@mailinator.com

            I have been liking Zero Hedge. Had high hopes for NewsBud, (boiling frog), but it did not seem to pan out. I’ve been testing sites with simple searches here, and it’s easier than ever to tell who’s censoring right now. Just ask the search bar about the wikileaks. If you get dummed down content you know the deal. I’m so peeved at infowars for censoring all these posts, I’d like someone to talk about why that is happening. But then again, dang, you cannot even post hardly anywhere anymore without a login. I miss bugmenot and if I knew it would get this bad I would have made 10000 yahoo accounts for just the purpose of normal anonymous posting. Nothing is really anonymous of course, not for regular people. But it’s the act of forcing a login an consolidated posting where post content is held on a 3rd party server which is alarming. It’s not that hard to hold data but now I understand this transition away from the popular original forum style sites to this new reader blog approach. Why is every tech ‘upgrade’ simply repackaging the same thing with less user functionality these days?

  • Halloween Week 2015

    Have a chance to enjoy free Halloween with us 🙂 Halloween Costume ideas 2015

    Halloween 2015

    • cettel

      Go to hell, spammer!

  • Brockland A.T.

    Even Breitbart carried this story and headlined it appropriately; it was written by Liam Deacon.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/16/poll-one-in-five-syrians-think-isis-are-good-82-per-cent-think-america-created-it/

    The update link to NPR about Russia in Syria was more clearly propaganda, but washingtonsblog also hyped ‘The Russians are coming’ hysteria at one point.

    Its possible some sites did not consider a polling story to be important enough news relative to other potential stories. Its best to survey a number of different sources to get a feel for what they normally would publish and what then seems an unusual deviation or omission.

    Basing one’s judgement on whether or not a site consistently publishes any particular writer is not necessarily the best criteria on aristocratic censorship.

  • the-deep-thinker

    Great list. I love this site.
    I’m just curious by what terms what qualifies this list? Because I have read a to not honest journalism at global research. So in just curious why they made this list?
    Have a beautiful day! 🙂

    • the-deep-thinker

      Damn you autocorrect.
      *i meant to say. I read a lot of honest journalism at global research.*
      So I was just curious what constitutes this list (what is the criteria to make this list.)
      Have a nice day

      • the-deep-thinker

        My misunderstanding, the global research one was BOLD. answered my own question.
        Thanks for the great posts.
        Keep up the quality journalism.
        I love the article Washington’s Blog wrote about Internet trolls (some time ago)
        Good stuff!!! 🙂

  • This makes the target’s much smaller with an overhead view for America!

    These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America

    That’s consolidated from 50 companies back in 1983. NOTE: This infographic is from last year and is missing some key transactions. GE does not own NBC (or Comcast or any media) anymore. So that 6th company is now Comcast. And Time Warner doesn’t own AOL, so Huffington Post isn’t affiliated with them.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

    http://cdn.storyleak.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/mainstream-media-infographic.jpg

  • X@mailinator.com

    Great article. As of 10/17/2016 infowars seems to be engaging in massive censorship and removal of open reader blog posts. They would always keep them somewhat clean which was acceptable. But suddenly just yesterday I’ve seen hundreds of valid and informative open reader blog posts removed. Mention of disguss being owned by google, statements positively confirming a desire for peace with Russia, and questioning who’s really on the 7th floor if that’s literal or which building, all removed. And that was just me, I viewed whole chunks of commentary disappear in seconds. This is a very disturbing trend and there is no better way for news organizations to discredit themselves than to censor valid positions, publish requests, and open reader blog forums. So thank you to this site for offering the blog without login requirement. This post should serve as a proofing item that if it’s google doing this, I’ve referenced the material censored on other sites and this will disappear. If the site is censoring, you’ll read this post and know the truth. Suddenly war with russia is popular? Suddenly meaningful historical quotes are censored? Central banking poses a greater threat to our liberty than standing armies. It is no coincidence the century of central banking coincided with the century of total war. / For a brief moment it looked like infowars was really cleaning up and getting trust worthy. My my how quickly the tides can turn. Thank you to everyone whom still puts the tenets of liberty first. A friend of liberty is a friend of mine. There is no middle ground, you believe in free speech or you don’t, there is no such thing as a valid approach to selective application of free speech. Thank you. X

    • X@mailinator.com

      Excuse me, typed too fast there. If this site washngtonsblg is not censoring, you’ll have read my post. Sort of pointless for me to say that, but just fyi. Hey there infowars censors, I told on you and you. That’s the problem with censorship. Word gets around. Censorship is a self defeating policy.

  • X@mailinator.com

    Got it. Great direction, thanks. / http://projectcensored.org/disinfo-wars-alex-jones-war-mind/
    They are censoring me because in this time of high tension, I am promoting a middle ground bring people together ideology. Pundits never like that. Thanks!