Project Censored

I'm studying to be a journalist, so a book like Project Censored's Censored 2009 is indispensable to me as a learning tool. In addition to shedding light on 25 of the most underreported news stories of the last two years (the '09 edition covers stories from '07 and '08) they also have 14 other chapters dedicated to more specific studies of censorship in the mass media.

To someone who is both a) interested in media criticism and theory and b) gigantically skeptical of conventional wisdom this should be an enthralling trip into what information society misses, right?

I'm not so sure. I got through the introduction, preface, and a few of the Project's top 25, but the fight was just in getting to the top 25. The roadblock being that right off the bat the group makes their politics known. Then the introduction, written by Green Party Presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney, is written astoundingly poorly for a former Congresswoman. Not to mention the Green Party is off-the-deep-end left wing.

Furthermore "to censor" is traditionally defined as "removing objectionable content". The people at Project Censored don't see it that way, and they fail make that clear in the beginning of the book. At all. I had to go to their website to figure that one out. What they consider censored, I (and the dictionary) would consider underreported.

My point is that media watchdog organizations should be as unbiased as possible. Regardless of what your personal opinions are they should not take shape in any means in your work (unless, of course, that work calls for it).

I can't make any final decisions on the book quite yet (it's 300+ pages, I'm on page 20 and from what I've read once it gets going it gets a whole lot better) but my point still stands. Putting bias and media (even if that "media" is followed up by criticism) together only leads to problems.