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

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

[updated from 17 September 2015, and restoring links that since died]

[a new updated list of 51 recommended news-sites is at the end here]

Eric Zuesse


One 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) want the public not to know, is to submit important news reports to them on a regular basis, so as to find out which media will publish it, and which ones won’t (which ones won’t publish a major and rigorously researched news story that reports something which is much discussed in the news but which includes information that 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 precisely of this sort.

A news-report of this type was submitted on 16 September 2015 to all major mainstream and “alternative news” news-sites in the U.S., and international-news sites, including the sites listed following; and only the nine sites that are shown here BOLDFACED-CAPITALIZED actually published it (and if you click onto the link there, you will see it at that site); all of the other sites did not:




American Prospect

Asia Times

Black Agenda

Blacklisted News


Business Insider




Common Dreams

Consortium News Service



Daily Kos

Daily Mail

Democracy Now

Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten

Dissident Voice

Drudge Report

Empty Wheel






Financial Times

Foreign Policy

Fort Russ



Hampton Institute


Huffington Post

In These Times



Institute for Policy Studies

Lapham Quarterly



Media Matters

Mother Jones



Naked Capitalism

National Interest

National Memo

National Post

National Review

New Cold War

New Statesman

New Yorker


OFF-GUARDIAN [sharp recent decline in quality]

Oriental Review


Paul Craig Roberts


PRISON PLANET [now only Republican propaganda]

Raw Story

RINF [gone]

Rolling Stone

Russia Insider



SMIRKING CHIMP [now only Democratic propaganda]




The Atlantic

The Daily Beast

The Guardian

The Independent

The Intercept

The Nation

The New Republic

The New York Times


The Progressive

The Young Turk


Thom Hartmann


Wall Street Journal

Washington Post



Here was the news-report that only those nine sites published:


Polls Show Syrians Overwhelmingly Blame U.S. for ISIS

Eric Zuesse, 16 September 2015

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. [I should have explained: ISIS opposed both Syria’s Government and America’s Government; Al Qaeda in Syria, which called itself Al Nusra, opposed Syria’s Government and was leading most of the U.S-supported groups who were trying to overthrow the Government, and was therefore central to America’s war against Syria’s Government. Whereas both ISIS and Al Qaeda were jihadists, these two groups opposed one-another regarding the U.S.]  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 covered Syria that day, a good example can be found here.



The new list of 51 recommended sites are:

American Herald Tribune



Asia Times

Blacklisted News

Consortium News

Coronavirus Data


Craig Murray

Dances with Bears

Defend Democracy

EurAsia Review

Europe Reloaded

Geopolitics Alert

Global Research

Global Village Space

Greanville Post

Information Clearing House

Inner City Press

Law and Crime

Libyan War The Truth

Little Sis


Middle East Eye

Middle East Monitor

Middle East Observer

Mint Press News

Modern Diplomacy

Moon of Alabama

New Eastern Outlook

News Lookup

No War No NATO

Oriental Review

PEU Report

Polling Politicians

Polling Report

Russian Television

South China Morning Post

South Front

Stalker Zone

Strategic Culture

Syria News

Tehran Times

The Duran

The Energy Mix

The Gray Zone

The Saker


Venezuela Analysis

Wall Street on Parade

Zero Hedge

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 fooled the public 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 the recommended sites (this small minority of news-media, the ones which are not controlled by 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.


The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

What do you think?

17 Points
Upvote Downvote
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Ellis
July 20, 2020

The richest of the rich own all of mainstream media in USA.
And as they are guaranteed freedom of the press, only they decide who gets heard and who gets seen. Pure brainwash and a blackout on all the knowledge needed for rebellion.

Olivia Kroth
July 20, 2020

Eric, all of the French media are censored, too. This might not be of relevance for English speakers but it is for Francophone speakers and people living in France. The only French speaking media I know that are not censored is RUSSIA TODAY (RT) in French, or French editions of Arab language media, like SANA (Syria).

Olivia Kroth
Reply to  Olivia Kroth
July 20, 2020

The French police made and is still making lots of problems for journalists of RT in Paris, when they want to film protest marches of the Yellow Vests or interview people there. Some of the RT journalists got very roiugh treatment, some were even injured, while doing their job. The French police is fascist mafia.

Olivia Kroth
Reply to  Olivia Kroth
July 20, 2020

Why can I not edit my own comment? I want to correct the spelling mistake in “rough”.

M. van der Kemp
M. van der Kemp
Reply to  Olivia Kroth
July 20, 2020

Censorship unfortunately is something we are dealing with throughout the whole western empire, possibly the whole world. If you’re looking for independent french news, I would look for small youtube channels / bitchute channels (most banned channels moved to bitchute, and those who were banned speak the most truth) that talk about news, like the people who report on the Gillets Jaunes.

Or perhaps start with Eric Zuesse’s list, and see where they link to, I’m sure there are some french sites in there.

Olivia Kroth
Reply to  M. van der Kemp
July 20, 2020

Thank you for the recommendations. I have no experience with bitchute yet. I like the RT youtube videos in French. You are right that censorship can be found in many parts of the world. You never know whether you are getting the truth or fake news, these days ….

The Education System Prevents the Progress of Society

Railway Politics: India Gets Lost Along the New Silk Roads