There are few if any high profile cases about censorship covered by the mass media anymore; however there were at least a dozen or so relatively high profile ones shortly before the mainstream media consolidated into six oligarchs controlling over 90% of the media. Even most of those didn't get an enormous amount of coverage from traditional media, with the possible exception of the case of Oprah Winfrey verses the Cattle industry, since she's a celebrity.
Another high profile example of censorship or attempted censorship that I heard about on the traditional media was the case of Jeffrey Wigand blowing the whistle on the tobacco industry on Sixty Minutes, and an expose from Day One on ABC, which led to a lawsuit where they agreed to pay $15 million even though most of their story was almost certainly true. In both these cases the media companies were involved in merger talks and they were reviewing litigation and almost certainly either censored these stories or settled them to appease the buyers so they wouldn't have to worry about liability.
Sixty Minutes attempted to portray their reporters and producers as heroic defenders of the freedom of the press; however, there's good reason to believe that many cases that exposed corporate wrong doing since then have been suppressed and that media coverage about lawsuits haven't received nearly as much attention as they should have, although some credible, and lower profile alternative media outlets or non-fiction books have reported on many more cases. But these are mostly scattered and reported either as isolated incidents, or in some cases reported two or three cases at a time.
There's little or no doubt that there are many more than that; and over the years I found some reports of supposedly high profile censorship cases that I had never heard of even though at the time I watched the nightly news and read traditional newspapers like the Boston Globe practically every day. These stories may have been reported in a large number of newspapers or alternative media but they were mostly ignored by network news, Cable News, and some of the biggest papers, or perhaps they weren't featured in a high profile manner so many of us would pay attention.
Some of the big stories that I read about eventually in at least one good non-fiction book include the McLibel case, which was perhaps the most famous one, Cincinnati Enquirer v. Chiquita Banana, lawsuits from big plastic companies trying to drive ChicoBag's out of business and several censorship claims against Walmart but they're many more where that came from. When ever I look up a major company like ExxonMobil with the word censorship more articles start turning up that I never heard of.
Recently Common Dreams reported that While New Twitter Policy Will Ban Green Groups' Climate Ads, Looks Like ExxonMobil Can Still Pay to Promote Its Propaganda 11/05/2019; which is actually typical of the way the entire media establishment has been operating for decades, and after the consolidation of the media in the late nineties it got much worse especially since they also have interlocking boards of directors with many other Wall Street corporations, creating major conflicts of interests. I did a search of several corporations for censorship, finding more articles for each one that I wouldn't have found if I hadn't looked for it, guaranteeing that if I went down the list of major corporations there would be dozens if not thousands more examples of censorship; however, even though this is helpful since it's so tedious it may be easier to understand how the media establishment operates with over ninety percent of all national media controlled by a fraction of one percent; and social media being moderated by a fraction of one percent of the public to understand how enormous corporate control of the media has become.
Below are just a fraction of the stories that have been censored or where corporations have attempted to censor their critics but even if I made this article much longer I wouldn't be able to cover more than fraction of the censorship that has been routine for years; however understanding how big the problem may be easier, just by understanding how few people control the mass media. As I pointed out in numerous articles including Alternative Media is an Absolute Necessity!! and Millionaires And Billionaires Control The Truth According To MSM! there are only six corporations controlling over ninety percent of the media, and the biggest additional media outlets are all owned by multimillionaires or billionaires, enabling a fraction of 1% to control well over 90% of the media which is what many of us were taught was what the First Amendment was supposed to prevent!
They routinely use their control of the media to rig elections by ensuring that only candidates they support can get the media coverage they need to get name recognition; promote war propaganda when it suits their purposes and fiscal ideology that rigs the economy overwhelmingly in their own favor, which is why the Richest 1% of Americans is Close to Surpassing Wealth of Middle Class. 11/09/2019 This is no accident; they intentionally rig the economy in their own favor and censorship is one of the most effective methods they use to ensure it stays that way!
Perhaps the most famous case, with the possible exception of the Jeffrey Wigand and Oprah Winfrey cases is the McLibel case. The only reason this case was made was because the United Kingdom had among the most extreme libel laws in the world heavily favoring corporations, but this trial exposed how biased & corrupt those law are or perhaps were; but since then the laws in the United States have been getting worse, often at the state level with AgGag laws or food libel laws. The following story also includes the conversion of at least one or two people that were acting undercover AGAINST the animal rights activists that became vegetarian and were so disgusted with their own jobs:
The McLibel Trial
The McLibel Trial is the infamous British court case between McDonald's and a former postman & a gardener from London (Helen Steel and Dave Morris). It ran for two and a half years and became the longest ever English trial. The defendants were denied legal aid and their right to a jury, so the whole trial was heard by a single Judge, Mr Justice Bell. He delivered his verdict in June 1997.
The verdict was devastating for McDonald's. The judge ruled that they 'exploit children' with their advertising, produce 'misleading' advertising, are 'culpably responsible' for cruelty to animals, are 'antipathetic' to unionization and pay their workers low wages. But Helen and Dave failed to prove all the points and so the Judge ruled that they HAD libeled McDonald's and should pay 60,000 pounds damages.
They refused and McDonald's knew better than to pursue it.
In March 1999 the Court of Appeal made further rulings that it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide "do badly in terms of pay and conditions", and true that "if one eats enough McDonald's food, one's diet may well become high in fat etc., with the very real risk of heart disease."
As a result of the court case, the Anti-McDonald's campaign mushroomed, the press coverage increased exponentially, this website was born and a feature length documentary was broadcast round the world.
The legal controversy continued. The McLibel 2 took the British Government to the European Court of Human Rights to defend the public's right to criticize multinationals, claiming UK libel laws are oppressive and unfair that they were denied a fair trial. The court ruled in favor of Helen and Dave: the case had breached their their rights to freedom of expression and a fair trial.
Who said ordinary people can't change the world?
Read the whole story here.
The McLibel Trial is the infamous British court case between McDonald's and a former postman & a gardener from London (Helen Steel and Dave Morris). It ran for two and a half years and became the longest ever English trial. The defendants were denied legal aid and their right to a jury, so the whole trial was heard by a single Judge, Mr Justice Bell. He delivered his verdict in June 1997.
The verdict was devastating for McDonald's. The judge ruled that they 'exploit children' with their advertising, produce 'misleading' advertising, are 'culpably responsible' for cruelty to animals, are 'antipathetic' to unionization and pay their workers low wages. But Helen and Dave failed to prove all the points and so the Judge ruled that they HAD libeled McDonald's and should pay 60,000 pounds damages.
They refused and McDonald's knew better than to pursue it.
In March 1999 the Court of Appeal made further rulings that it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide "do badly in terms of pay and conditions", and true that "if one eats enough McDonald's food, one's diet may well become high in fat etc., with the very real risk of heart disease."
As a result of the court case, the Anti-McDonald's campaign mushroomed, the press coverage increased exponentially, this website was born and a feature length documentary was broadcast round the world.
The legal controversy continued. The McLibel 2 took the British Government to the European Court of Human Rights to defend the public's right to criticize multinationals, claiming UK libel laws are oppressive and unfair that they were denied a fair trial. The court ruled in favor of Helen and Dave: the case had breached their their rights to freedom of expression and a fair trial.
Who said ordinary people can't change the world?
Read the whole story here.
Their web page includes the trial transcripts, and much more including over a dozen other McLibel cases that took place before theirs and got much less attention. In many cases corporations, including some of these McLibel suits win but few people ever hear about it, one of the stories where McVegan published their own story on line is no longer on the internet but it has been saved on the Wayback Machine which you can read here.
Marion Nestle (no relation to chocolate corporation) was one of the good non-fiction authors that covered this story, along with at least two other censorship stories in one of her books, "Food Politics." Approximately the same time her first edition was going to press she received a letter from a lawyer for the Sugar Association that was clearly an attempt to intimidate which she recognized and told them so as described in this except:
Marion Nestle "Food Politics" 2002
But then a second attack came a few weeks later from a lawyer for the Sugar Association, a group representing the interests of producers of sugar cane and beets. The letter charged me with making “numerous false, misleading, disparaging, and defamatory statements about sugar” such as “the false and inaccurate statement that soft drinks contain sugar.” It said soft drinks “have contained virtually no sugar (sucrose) in more than 20 years,” and if I did not“cease making misleading or false statements regarding sugar or the sugar industry . . . the only recourse available to us will be to legally defend our industry and its members against any and all fallacious and harmful allegations.” Mind you, the ingredient labels of soft drinks say they contain “high fructose corn syrup and/or sucrose,” and both sweeteners are made of glucose and fructose—sugars. Thus, the lawyer’s letter could have only one purpose: intimidation. I wrote back saying so and heard nothing further from this group. Complete article
But then a second attack came a few weeks later from a lawyer for the Sugar Association, a group representing the interests of producers of sugar cane and beets. The letter charged me with making “numerous false, misleading, disparaging, and defamatory statements about sugar” such as “the false and inaccurate statement that soft drinks contain sugar.” It said soft drinks “have contained virtually no sugar (sucrose) in more than 20 years,” and if I did not“cease making misleading or false statements regarding sugar or the sugar industry . . . the only recourse available to us will be to legally defend our industry and its members against any and all fallacious and harmful allegations.” Mind you, the ingredient labels of soft drinks say they contain “high fructose corn syrup and/or sucrose,” and both sweeteners are made of glucose and fructose—sugars. Thus, the lawyer’s letter could have only one purpose: intimidation. I wrote back saying so and heard nothing further from this group. Complete article
In addition to writing about McLibel she also wrote about the conflict with Oprah Winfrey and the Cattle industry; and Chiquita Banana versus the Cincinnati Enquirer, which explains that they exposed wrong doing in the corporations practices; however instead of disputing the charges they accused the reporters of obtaining their information illegally as described in the following except:
Marion Nestle "Food Politics" 2002
Chiquita Banana versus the Cincinnati Enquirer
In the Banana wars describes in Chapter 4, a different but particularly nasty battle took place over a newspaper investigative report. In 1998 the Cincinnati Enquirer published a lengthy account of a year-long investigation it had sponsored into the Cincinnati-based Chiquita companies “unsavory” practices in banana producing countries. The reporters who wrote the account accused the company of creating secret business entities to avoid local land and labor laws, bribing local officials, using pesticides in irresponsible ways that harmed workers and the environment, and moving plantation residents without their permission. The investigative reporters freely stated that they had used company voice-mail recordings as one source of these allegations.
Rather than deal with the charges, Chiquita lawyers accused the reporters of obtaining the telephone recordings through illegal means and threatened a lawsuit. Rather than defending its reporters and their account, the newspaper quickly conceded that the reporters had acted inappropriately, fired them, published an apology, and paid a $10 million settlement fee. Chiquita then sued one of the reporters for defamation. Later accounts revealed that the judge who assigned himself to the defamation case had received campaign contributions from Chiquita executives as well as from the special prosecutor who was investigating the charges. To the distress of commentators concerned about journalistic ethics, the reporter – as part of a plea bargain – revealed the name of the person who had given him the voice-mail records. This well-publicized drama, in which the behavior of the newspaper, that of the company, and that of the reporters all raised ethical concerns, thoroughly distracted attention from the content of the investigative report itself. Although Chiquita denied the accusations, neither the company nor anyone else produced evidence to suggest that the reporters’ findings were false.
Because Chiquita is based in Cincinnati and might be expected to have close connections with other Cincinnati-based institutions, such as the newspaper and the judiciary, we can only wonder why the newspaper agreed to fund the investigation in the first place. Such investigations take courage, deep pockets, skill, and a commitment to make sacrifices to uphold ethical principles – in short, resources well beyond those of most hometown newspapers. Chiquita’s aggressive actions and the newspaper’s hasty retreat revealed how high the stakes are in such investigations, perhaps convincing other editors that probing the practices of food companies cannot possibly be worth the price. Complete article
Chiquita Banana versus the Cincinnati Enquirer
In the Banana wars describes in Chapter 4, a different but particularly nasty battle took place over a newspaper investigative report. In 1998 the Cincinnati Enquirer published a lengthy account of a year-long investigation it had sponsored into the Cincinnati-based Chiquita companies “unsavory” practices in banana producing countries. The reporters who wrote the account accused the company of creating secret business entities to avoid local land and labor laws, bribing local officials, using pesticides in irresponsible ways that harmed workers and the environment, and moving plantation residents without their permission. The investigative reporters freely stated that they had used company voice-mail recordings as one source of these allegations.
Rather than deal with the charges, Chiquita lawyers accused the reporters of obtaining the telephone recordings through illegal means and threatened a lawsuit. Rather than defending its reporters and their account, the newspaper quickly conceded that the reporters had acted inappropriately, fired them, published an apology, and paid a $10 million settlement fee. Chiquita then sued one of the reporters for defamation. Later accounts revealed that the judge who assigned himself to the defamation case had received campaign contributions from Chiquita executives as well as from the special prosecutor who was investigating the charges. To the distress of commentators concerned about journalistic ethics, the reporter – as part of a plea bargain – revealed the name of the person who had given him the voice-mail records. This well-publicized drama, in which the behavior of the newspaper, that of the company, and that of the reporters all raised ethical concerns, thoroughly distracted attention from the content of the investigative report itself. Although Chiquita denied the accusations, neither the company nor anyone else produced evidence to suggest that the reporters’ findings were false.
Because Chiquita is based in Cincinnati and might be expected to have close connections with other Cincinnati-based institutions, such as the newspaper and the judiciary, we can only wonder why the newspaper agreed to fund the investigation in the first place. Such investigations take courage, deep pockets, skill, and a commitment to make sacrifices to uphold ethical principles – in short, resources well beyond those of most hometown newspapers. Chiquita’s aggressive actions and the newspaper’s hasty retreat revealed how high the stakes are in such investigations, perhaps convincing other editors that probing the practices of food companies cannot possibly be worth the price. Complete article
Some of the stories that were initially published as part of public record may have been taken down, however Wikileaks collected many of them and saved them, so they'll continue to be available whether the media outlets keep them on line or not. According to one of the articles as part of the settlement the Cincinnati Enquirer signed a "confidentiality agreement with Chiquita;" and as recent disclosures from people working for the Trump administration have made clear, non-disclosure agreements are routine for most corporations, including Chiquita apparently, making it illegal to disclose information about any wrong doing that a company might be involved wrongdoing.
You would think that a government representing the voters would pass disclosure laws making it illegal for non-disclosure laws that ban telling the truth about corporate fraud even when it endangers lives of the public through food or worker safety and environmental damage; but at best they confuse the issue so that most people can't tell when these non-disclosure laws are enforceable.
We're not supposed to believe this is a result of bribery, since the beneficiaries of these laws are routinely campaign contributors; after all the people accepting the donation and judges appointed by them say there's no "quid quo pro!"
Another example where attempts at censorship supposedly backfired was when the plastic industry decided to sue a small environmentally friendly corporations for libeling them as described by Edward Hume in the following excerpts from his book (additional excerpts can be read on line on Google by clicking on the links; if some pages don't come up Google an excerpt and it usually pulls it up, as long as you don't read too many pages from the same book.):
Edward Hume “Garbology” 2012
Demand was so great Keller ended up fashioning a hundred Bag Monster ... he developed a ream of informational materials on single-use plastic bags, the ... And that’s when the trouble started. Bag Monster, it seemed, had gone too far. And the plastic bag makers, whose spending on lobbyists in Sacramento alone dwarfs Chico Bag's annual profits— decided to fight back. Three plastic bag makers ... (Edward Hume “Garbology” 2012 p.215-)
Then TerraCycle scientists and engineers found a way to "upcycle" these environmentally damaging waste products. ... backpacks, Doritos jackets, clipboards, notebooks and a host of other products (the coasters and clipboards made out ..
“They can say that,” Keller says, “but I think this lawsuit was the biggest mistake they ever made. It put ChicoBag on the map. It gave me a national, maybe even a global stage, to talk about these issues, to talk about kicking the disposable habit, ... (Edward Hume “Garbology” 2012 p.233-)
The suit was filed by a trio of plastic bag makers – Hilex Poly Company of Hartsville, South Carolina (ten plants in seven states), Superbag Operating, Ltd., of Houston, and Advanced Polybag, Inc., of Sugar Land, Texas. Together they are among ... (Edward Hume “Garbology” 2012 p.334)
The plastic companies did not explain how such general claims published on a reusable bag companies could affect their commercial disposable bag business. The vast majority of consumers had never heard of Hilex Poly or the other companies. Proving the statements false would not win the case for the plastic makers; they would also have to show that these statements caused specific injuries—a formidable legal hurdle. They would have to prove, for instance, that executives at a major supermarket perused ChicoBag’s website and then decided to stop buying plastic bags from one of the three defendants. (Edward Hume “Garbology” 2012 p.335)
Demand was so great Keller ended up fashioning a hundred Bag Monster ... he developed a ream of informational materials on single-use plastic bags, the ... And that’s when the trouble started. Bag Monster, it seemed, had gone too far. And the plastic bag makers, whose spending on lobbyists in Sacramento alone dwarfs Chico Bag's annual profits— decided to fight back. Three plastic bag makers ... (Edward Hume “Garbology” 2012 p.215-)
Then TerraCycle scientists and engineers found a way to "upcycle" these environmentally damaging waste products. ... backpacks, Doritos jackets, clipboards, notebooks and a host of other products (the coasters and clipboards made out ..
“They can say that,” Keller says, “but I think this lawsuit was the biggest mistake they ever made. It put ChicoBag on the map. It gave me a national, maybe even a global stage, to talk about these issues, to talk about kicking the disposable habit, ... (Edward Hume “Garbology” 2012 p.233-)
The suit was filed by a trio of plastic bag makers – Hilex Poly Company of Hartsville, South Carolina (ten plants in seven states), Superbag Operating, Ltd., of Houston, and Advanced Polybag, Inc., of Sugar Land, Texas. Together they are among ... (Edward Hume “Garbology” 2012 p.334)
The plastic companies did not explain how such general claims published on a reusable bag companies could affect their commercial disposable bag business. The vast majority of consumers had never heard of Hilex Poly or the other companies. Proving the statements false would not win the case for the plastic makers; they would also have to show that these statements caused specific injuries—a formidable legal hurdle. They would have to prove, for instance, that executives at a major supermarket perused ChicoBag’s website and then decided to stop buying plastic bags from one of the three defendants. (Edward Hume “Garbology” 2012 p.335)
According to Inside California’s Plastic Bag War 10/24/2016 "agreed to a settlement in 2011," where both parties agreed to change their advertising policies and declare victory and "ChicoBag’s insurance company was to pay an undisclosed financial amount." It's virtually guaranteed that additional details of this settlement are subject to a confidentiality agreement which seems to be standard operating procedure among these types of suits, although the public has no knowledge of what's being withed and how it might impact them.
In the cases of ChicoBags, Oprah Winfrey, and McLibel, they all eventually won getting much more attention as a result of the lawsuits. Many people came to the conclusion that this shows the system works, and that they were able to get their message out to a much larger audience as a result of the lawsuits; however, at best, this is only partially true.
In the case of Chiquita Banana v. The Cincinnati Enquirer and many other other Mclibel lawsuits reported on McSpotLight.org there's good reason to believe that there's much more that hasn't been disclosed, and there are many other cases that didn't get nearly as much attention. As I pointed out earlier once you start Googling for various companies you could spend all day every day for years and continue finding obscure lawsuits about libel with large corporations almost always suppressing the truth. We have no way of knowing how much fraud or how many dangerous products are on the market as a result of intimidation tactics to scare anyone from telling the truth about Wall street corporations with political connections.
The case of Oprah Winfrey and an even older one against Sixty Minutes by Washington apple growers were also cited as successes to defend free speech; however, they only succeeded in defending those with control of large media corporations, which have since consolidated to six oligarchs. Furthermore, these six oligarchies provide minimal coverage of food libel laws, AgGag laws or other laws designed to protect corporate secrecy that enables them to suppress free speech.
I'm usually not a big fan of Oprah; however she was right to defend free speech when sued for libel, although she was wrong when she concluded that free speech was successfully defended, even though she on this case as described in the following article:
We Looked Back At The Time Oprah Feuded With Big Beef 09/18/2019
That Literally Happened! revisited the time Oprah Winfrey found herself in a legal battle with the Texas cattle industry over fears of mad cow disease.
That Literally Happened!, a new show from BuzzFeed News on Facebook Watch, is revisiting some of the most memorable moments of the ‘90s.
Meatless trends are all the rage today, but big beef had a different enemy in a time before Impossible Burgers and Beyond Meat took the world by storm — Oprah Winfrey. The American cattle industry was already in the spotlight amid growing concerns of mad cow disease in England, but the queen of daytime talk shows ratcheted up the problems for US beef on a 1996 episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show.
A discussion with animal rights activist Howard Lyman focusing on mad cow disease put the famous talk show host at odds with the American cattle industry. With Lyman offering his prediction of widespread impact to American beef from the disease, Oprah declared that the conversation had, “stopped me cold from eating another burger.”
US beef prices sank within two weeks of the show’s airing, eventually sliding all the way to a 10-year low, leading some ranchers to point the finger at Oprah for the drop.
Tensions between Oprah and the cattle industry came to a head in December 1997, when a group of executives filed a lawsuit against the talk show host, blaming her for millions in lost business as a result of statements about beef they believed were false and defamatory.
With a jury trial set to take place in February 1998, Oprah wasn't just going to let some lawsuit force her to go on hiatus. Instead, she brought her entire show to Texas during the trial.
Oprah was prohibited from discussing the trial on television due to a gag order from the court, but that didn't stop the people of Amarillo and her TV audience from putting two and two together. ......
Oprah emerged from the courthouse victorious on Feb. 26, 1998, and celebrated the ruling. “Free speech not only lives, it rocks,” she said. Complete article
That Literally Happened! revisited the time Oprah Winfrey found herself in a legal battle with the Texas cattle industry over fears of mad cow disease.
That Literally Happened!, a new show from BuzzFeed News on Facebook Watch, is revisiting some of the most memorable moments of the ‘90s.
Meatless trends are all the rage today, but big beef had a different enemy in a time before Impossible Burgers and Beyond Meat took the world by storm — Oprah Winfrey. The American cattle industry was already in the spotlight amid growing concerns of mad cow disease in England, but the queen of daytime talk shows ratcheted up the problems for US beef on a 1996 episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show.
A discussion with animal rights activist Howard Lyman focusing on mad cow disease put the famous talk show host at odds with the American cattle industry. With Lyman offering his prediction of widespread impact to American beef from the disease, Oprah declared that the conversation had, “stopped me cold from eating another burger.”
US beef prices sank within two weeks of the show’s airing, eventually sliding all the way to a 10-year low, leading some ranchers to point the finger at Oprah for the drop.
Tensions between Oprah and the cattle industry came to a head in December 1997, when a group of executives filed a lawsuit against the talk show host, blaming her for millions in lost business as a result of statements about beef they believed were false and defamatory.
With a jury trial set to take place in February 1998, Oprah wasn't just going to let some lawsuit force her to go on hiatus. Instead, she brought her entire show to Texas during the trial.
Oprah was prohibited from discussing the trial on television due to a gag order from the court, but that didn't stop the people of Amarillo and her TV audience from putting two and two together. ......
Oprah emerged from the courthouse victorious on Feb. 26, 1998, and celebrated the ruling. “Free speech not only lives, it rocks,” she said. Complete article
If Oprah had done her research she might have known that some states, including Texas were already in the process of toughening up Libel or AgGag Laws, and the fact that the media was consolidating onto six corporations approximately the times she one this case. This is another example where the high profile celebrity hero defending free speech is silent about the vast majority of censorship, and the fact that these six oligarchs now control almost all the media and can decide when to report on things and when not to including exposing their own advertisers which they're often reluctant to do, probably much more than before media consolidation.
This isn't limited to consumer safety, I've go into many more cases in past articles where they routinely censor the truth about foreign policy in wars based on lies, and they also routinely only cover a small fraction of candidates ensuring that only those that the media approve of are the only ones getting name recognition enabling them to be viable for most elected offices, especially national races or state wide ones in large or even medium states. In fact, she's often been the beneficiary of this when they mentioned her with obsession coverage for a few months in 2017 as a potential leading presidential candidate.
Another example was a case from 1989, that I hardly remembered until searching for censorship examples, where Washington Apple growers brought a lawsuit against Sixty Minutes, that was quickly dismissed getting minimal media coverage, as described in the following article:
What Happens When The Media Beefs With The Food Industry? | Serving Up Science 09/04/2019
Let's start with apples. In a 1989 episode of 60 minutes, CBS news reported that a chemical used to preserve apples, Daminozide (brand name Alar), was carcinogenic. The worst part was that the EPA knew about this for 16 years prior to the report.
People panicked. The demand for apples dropped.
Even though only an estimated 15% of U.S. apple trees actually used Daminozide at the time, according to the American Council on Science and Health, apple orchard owners lost hundreds of millions of dollars.
In response, apple orchard owners in Washington state filed suit against CBS for trade libel to recoup their losses.
But the growers were unable to disprove the 60 minutes report that Daminozide caused cancer, so the case was dismissed.
That’s because trade libel puts the burden of proof on the plaintiff rather than the defendant; meaning, if you accuse someone of libel, you better have proof to back that claim up.
This case was a catalyst in the creation of food libel laws.
Following pressure from lobbyists, several states – including Texas – introduced laws like these. Now food manufacturers could feel confident filing a lawsuit against someone who made a disparaging claim. These laws have different standards depending on the state.
..... (another description of the Oprah Case included) ......
Now let’s move to our last case: pink slime.
In 2012, a whistleblower from the beef industry came forward to ABC and said that some of the beef sold in the supermarket was padded with a filler, which was coined “pink slime.”
The beef industry sued ABC and was paid millions by the media company five years later. It never went to court.
Since each of these cases ended differently, it’s hard to know what is food libel and what is not without having a precedent. Complete article
Let's start with apples. In a 1989 episode of 60 minutes, CBS news reported that a chemical used to preserve apples, Daminozide (brand name Alar), was carcinogenic. The worst part was that the EPA knew about this for 16 years prior to the report.
People panicked. The demand for apples dropped.
Even though only an estimated 15% of U.S. apple trees actually used Daminozide at the time, according to the American Council on Science and Health, apple orchard owners lost hundreds of millions of dollars.
In response, apple orchard owners in Washington state filed suit against CBS for trade libel to recoup their losses.
But the growers were unable to disprove the 60 minutes report that Daminozide caused cancer, so the case was dismissed.
That’s because trade libel puts the burden of proof on the plaintiff rather than the defendant; meaning, if you accuse someone of libel, you better have proof to back that claim up.
This case was a catalyst in the creation of food libel laws.
Following pressure from lobbyists, several states – including Texas – introduced laws like these. Now food manufacturers could feel confident filing a lawsuit against someone who made a disparaging claim. These laws have different standards depending on the state.
..... (another description of the Oprah Case included) ......
Now let’s move to our last case: pink slime.
In 2012, a whistleblower from the beef industry came forward to ABC and said that some of the beef sold in the supermarket was padded with a filler, which was coined “pink slime.”
The beef industry sued ABC and was paid millions by the media company five years later. It never went to court.
Since each of these cases ended differently, it’s hard to know what is food libel and what is not without having a precedent. Complete article
Edit 11/20/2019: Several stories have come out about the leaked video of Amy Robach "letting off steam" about suppressing the Epstein story. allegedly, according to one source, the person that obtained the video and leaked it left ABC and went to work for CBS; however, once they found out about it, CBS fired him. This implies some degree of possible collusion, or a culture where they act in the same interests, between the major networks to blackball anyone that exposes their cover-ups.
Another story claims that they fired the wrong guy, and the real whistle-blower is still working at ABC and that he's doing this for a noble reason and believes Amy Robach is also doing this for noble reasons; however, his choose of alternative news outlets, James O'Keefe and Project Veritas, raises major doubts about his judgement. Furthermore Amy Robach walked back her rant and downplayed it, possibly to keep her job.
It's virtually impossible to tell who's telling the truth or not and why under these circumstances; however there's plenty of evidence to show that allowing so few people to control so much media is contrary to the purpose of the first amendment. And there's no doubt that corporations are involved in epidemic levels of censorship & that many members of the public could do a much better job if allowed to influence the media, and government, including control of the interview process for elected officials.
Amy Robach Walks Back Leaked Video Claiming ABC 'Quashed' Jeffrey Epstein Story: 'I Was Upset' 11/05/2019
Project Veritas’ ‘ABC Insider’ Has A Name … And A Statement 11/08/2019
ABC 'whistleblower' fired for leaking Amy Robach audio tells all 11/08/2019
CBS News Has Fired Former ABC News Employee for Leaking Amy Robach Video 11/07/2019
These are only a small fraction of the attempts at censorship, successful or not, and thanks to "confidentiality agreements" that are often including in the settlements we have no way of knowing whether the interests of the public are being defended. There's no doubt that there's much more to censorship by corporate media and multinational corporations than this and their secrecy is often protected by law thanks to trade secrecy or proprietary information laws which the vast majority of us don't understand or help influence.
In many cases the people criticizing corporations are mostly if not entirely telling the truth yet they rarely have the legal resources to understand the laws. A fundamental defense that many lawyers claim is that "the truth is a justifiable defense against slander or libel;" however, who decides what's true? Do public relations people, lobbyists, lawyers and judges decide? Or do they go through a peer review process like it's supposed to in the academic world? Louis D. Brandeis clearly thought this should be done but has that ever been the case?
Do advertisers tell the truth in the vast majority of commercials? Not to damn likely! Yet few people ever try to sue them and if they do they have little or no chance of winning. I haven't thoroughly researched it but if there was enforcement of truth in advertising laws do you really think half the commercials on TV would be running?
Of course not!
Access to civil courts, is for all practical purposes, a commodity that only the wealthy can afford; the vast majority of us can't afford lawyers to hold them accountable. The vast majority of the public isn't even aware of how much the truth is controlled by a small number of oligarchs although they do realize that the media isn't nearly as trustworthy as many of us used to believe they were.
In "Babylon 5" about twenty years ago they had an episode where the media reported on the oppression of people during martial law and the fact that a president, who gained power as a result of an assassination, although this wasn't reported at the time, bombed Mars, and that two space colonies had seceded from Earth when the military invaded them and they reported it live as it was happening. The next day they put it back on line with a totally new crew that provided heavily censored news coverage.
The heroic Captain John Sheridan followed suit and Babylon 5 also seceded, getting cut off from news from Earth. When he eventually got through to his father he was informed that the people knew that the media was no longer reliable after watching on live TV the government invading it. It was just way to damn obvious, Hollywood style.
Here in the real world the consolidation of the media was much more subtle, and many people that don't pay close attention to the news might not realize how unreliable traditional media has become; especially people obsessed with worshiping celebrities, sports or incredibly shallow reality TV. However those that became familiar with alternative media outlets might be much better informed.
The people defending free speech in some cases are often the ones trying to suppress it in other cases; occasionally some of the celebrity news anchors that leave the networks to join alternative media outlets because mainstream media refuses to report on many of the most important news stories often seem like heroes, but then they get exposed doing the same things again, often coming back at times with good stories once you think they've lost all their credibility.
How can anyone possibly keep track of it all?
Without enough time or access to alternative media outlets it's virtually impossible, and even with time and more reliable sources it's still very difficult to tell what's going on.
If you think I sound like a conspiracy theorists, your right!
If you're not a conspiracy theorist, why not?
Skeptics often say that good conspiracy theories or extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and their right, of course, but that evidence is often there if you know where to look for it assuming you even try!
The following are some additional sources to this article or feel free to do your own searches where you can find much more evidence of censorship, even if some of the claims are more credible than others:
The time Oprah Winfrey beefed with the Texas cattle industry 01/10/2018
The Chiquita Banana Exposé - The Cincinnati Enquirer 11/0/2019 On May 3, 1998 The Cincinnati Enquirer released a series of illegitmate accusations regarding the rightfulness of the Chiquita Banana Brand. The allegations were apparently heard from voice mails from a Chiquita employee, and were used to exploit the company.
McDonald's Censorship Strategy
The New Chiquita Papers: Secret Testimony and Internal Records Identify Banana Executives who Bankrolled Terror in Colombia 04/24/2017
Wikipedia: Food libel laws
Wikipedia: McLibel case
Wikipedia: Ag-gag
Wikipedia: Chilling effect
Wikipedia: A. J. Liebling "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one"
McDonald’s guilty of
Exploiting workers
Destroying the environment
Murdering animals
Fight Back Now
Police spymaster who posed as an environmental activist 'co-wrote McLibel leaflet which triggered longest civil trial in English history' 06/21/2013
Wal-Mart = Censorship 05/24/2009 Well of all people, Green Day has decided to tell Wal-Mart to kiss it’s ass. It’s latest album 21st Century Breakdown is #1 in the country, but you won’t find it at Wal-Mart. The retailer told Green Day to censor the songs or it would not carry the album, and Green Day’s front man Billy Joe Armstrong said this, likely while wearing eyeliner: “Wal-Mart’s become the biggest retail outfit in the country, but they won’t carry our record because they wanted us to censor it. They want artists to censor their records in order to be carried there … we just said, ‘No.’ We’ve never done it before. You feel like you’re in 1953 or something.” ...... “If you think about bands that are struggling or smaller than Green Day … to think that to get your record out in places like that, but they won’t carry it because of the content and you have to censor yourself. I mean, what does that say to a young kid who’s trying to speak his mind making a record for the first time? It’s like a game that you have to play. You have to refuse to play it.”
Corporate Censorship, Part I: Son of Wal-Mart 06/02/1997
The Man Who Knew Too Much May 1996
American Journalism Review: Up in Smoke November 1995
Columbia Journalism Review: ABC, Philip Morris and the Infamous Apology December 1995
ExxonMobil tried to censor climate scientists to Congress during Bush era 05/25/2016
While New Twitter Policy Will Ban Green Groups' Climate Ads, Looks Like ExxonMobil Can Still Pay to Promote Its Propaganda 11/05/2019
ExxonMobil's climate-change accounting goes on trial 10/22/2019
Banana Workers Win $2.5M In Dole Lawsuit 11/16/2007
Sterilized Workers Seek to Collect Damages Against Dow Chemical in France 09/19/2019
Oprah accused of whipping up anti-beef 'lynch mob' 01/21/1998
Inside California’s Plastic Bag War 10/24/2016 .... ChicoBag’s insurance company was to pay an undisclosed financial amount.
60 Minutes' most famous whistleblower 02/04/2016 Twenty years after its interview with Big Tobacco insider Jeffrey Wigand almost didn't air, 60 Minutes reflects on an important moment in journalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment