Checking the news hardly seems necessary these days. The news finds you.

Push notifications interrupt your dreams with dire bulletins. The president has turned the White House into a stage for his Twitter beefs—which now include the threat of nuclear war. Each day brings a fresh outrage or a new monster.

At the same time, the proliferation of mysteriously sourced stories on social media makes it harder than ever to discern which stories matter.

American confidence in the media is rebounding from an all-time low. Part of that distrust stems from a wave of lies spread by President Donald Trump and his supporters.

But a large helping of blame belongs with the corporate press and cable TV networks, who enabled the rise of a demagogue. The media aided Trump by failing to recognize his nihilistic and racist populism, and by growing addicted to the spectacle of entertaining blarney—no matter how cruel or untethered to reality.

That failure—the inability to distinguish what's important to our democracy and stubbornly cover it—is why many Americans have lost faith in their press.

President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore)
President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore)

It also gives renewed relevance to Project Censored. Since 1976, the annual book and reporting effort has catalogued each year's most important but underreported news stories. This year's book, Censored 2018, was published last week.

The project, headquartered at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park, Calif., is the joint effort of 310 student researchers and 27 faculty, who evaluate thousands of independent news stories looking for ones that demand national attention—but haven't received it. A panel of judges then ranks the stories from 1 to 25.

The name notwithstanding, Project Censored isn't about the muzzling of a free press by government. It instead grapples with how the press has censored itself, by refusing to amplify stories with massive effects on readers and viewers. Consider it an eye test that looks for the media's blind spots.

By at least one measure, Portlanders should be heartened by this year's list. The top story is one to which this city's media paid close attention in the past year: lead in drinking water. (WW's reporting of how Portland Public Schools administrators covered up lead testing results won special recognition from the Bruce Baer Awards, Oregon's top investigative journalism prizes.)

But even here, Project Censored provides an eye-opener. The findings show that the greatest danger to public health from lead may be hidden—because the financial burden of fixing toxic pipes could soon make water unaffordable for a big chunk of the country. That's one of the patterns this year's list establishes: the way that public health is being held hostage by unaccountable companies and governments.

"The 'inconvenient facts' underlying each of these stories challenge not only fundamental institutions in our society, but also cherished notions about who we are and the values we hold sacrosanct," writes Sonoma State University professor Andy Lee Roth in the introduction to this year's book.

The 10 stories you'll read in the following pages are filled with such unpleasant facts. You may not agree with all the conclusions Project Censored draws. But grappling with news you don't like—and not just dismissing it as "fake"—is this country's best shot at digging itself out of its collective mess.

Start digging.

—Aaron Mesh, News Editor

Stories below by Paul Rosenberg, Random Length News

Did You Know?

Lead in Pipes Could Soon Make Water Unaffordable for One-Third of Americans

After President Barack Obama declared a federal emergency in Flint, Mich., because of lead contamination of the city's water supply in January 2016, Reuters reporters M.B. Pell and Joshua Schneyer began an investigation of lead contamination nationwide, with shocking results.

In June 2016, they reported that although many states and Medicaid rules require blood lead tests for young children, millions of children were not being tested. In December 2016, they reported on the highly decentralized data they had been able to assemble from 21 states, showing that 2,606 census tracts and 278 ZIP codes across the United States had levels of lead poisoning more than double the rates found in Flint at the peak of its contamination crisis. Of those, 1,100 communities had lead contamination rates "at least four times higher" than Flint.

In Flint, 5 percent of children screened had high blood lead levels. Nationwide, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 2.5 percent of all U.S. children younger than 6—about 500,000 children—have elevated blood lead levels.

But Pell and Schneyer's neighborhood focus allowed them to identify local hot spots "whose lead poisoning problems may be obscured in broader surveys," such as those focused on statewide or countywide rates. They found them in communities that "stretch from Warren, Penn.,…where 36 percent of children tested had high lead levels, to…Goat Island, Texas, where a quarter of tests showed poisoning." What's more, "In some pockets of Baltimore, Cleveland and Philadelphia, where lead poisoning has spanned generations, the rate of elevated tests over the last decade was 40 to 50 percent."

But there's a deeper infrastructure problem involved, as Farron Cousins reported for DeSmogBlog in January 2017. "Lead pipes are time bombs," and water contamination is to be expected, Cousins wrote. The U.S. relies on an estimated 1.2 million miles of lead pipes for municipal delivery of drinking water, and much of this aging infrastructure is reaching or has exceeded its lifespan.

In 2012, the American Water Works Association estimated that a complete overhaul of the nation's aging water systems would require an investment of $1 trillion over the next 25 years, which could triple household water bills. As Cousins reported, a January 2017 Michigan State University study found that "while water rates are currently unaffordable for an estimated 11.9 percent of households, the conservative estimates of rising rates used in this study highlight that this number could grow to 35.6 percent in the next five years."

As Cousins concluded, "While the water contamination crisis will occasionally steal a headline or two, virtually no attention has been paid to the fact that we're pricing a third of United States citizens out of the water market."

Did You Know?

The Army Spent $6.5 Trillion It Can't Explain

In 1996, Congress passed legislation requiring all federal agencies to undergo annual audits, but a July 2016 report by the U.S. Defense Department's inspector general found that the Army alone has accumulated $6.5 trillion in expenditures that can't be accounted for over the past two decades.

As Dave Lindorff reported for the news website This Can't Be Happening!, the DOD "has not been tracking or recording or auditing all of the taxpayer money allocated by Congress—what it was spent on, how well it was spent, or where the money actually ended up." But the Army wasn't alone. "Things aren't any better at the Navy, Air Force and Marines," he added.

The report appeared at a time when "politicians of both major political parties are demanding accountability for every penny spent on welfare.…Ditto for people receiving unemployment compensation," Lindorff wrote. Politicians have also engaged in pervasive efforts "to make teachers accountable for student 'performance,'" he added. Yet, he observed, "the military doesn't have to account for any of its trillions of dollars of spending…even though Congress fully a generation ago passed a law requiring such accountability."

In March 2017, after Trump proposed a $52 billion increase in military spending, Thomas Hedges reported for The Guardian that "the Pentagon has exempted itself without consequence for 20 years now, telling the Government Accountability Office that collecting and organizing the required information for a full audit is too costly and time-consuming."

The most recent DOD audit deadline was September 2017, yet the Pentagon, Congress and the media don't seem to have paid any attention.

Did You Know?

The Pentagon Paid to Create Fake News About Al-Qaeda for Iraqis

Concern over Russian involvement in promoting fake news during the 2016 election is a justified hot topic in the news. But what about our own involvement in similar operations? In October 2016, Crofton Black and Abigail Fielding-Smith reported for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism on one such very expensive—and questionable—operation.

The Pentagon paid a British PR firm, Bell Pottinger, more than $660 million to run a top-secret propaganda program in Iraq from at least 2006 to December 2011. The work consisted of three types of products: TV commercials portraying al-Qaeda in a negative light, news items intended to look like Arabic TV, and—most disturbing—fake al-Qaeda propaganda films.

A former Bell Pottinger video editor, Martin Wells, told the bureau that he was given precise instructions for production of fake al-Qaeda films, and that the firm's output was approved by former Gen. David Petraeus—commander of the coalition forces in Iraq—and on occasion by the White House. They reported that the United States used contractors because "the military didn't have the in-house expertise and was operating in a legal 'gray area.'"

Documents show Bell Pottinger employed as many as 300 British and Iraqi staff at one point, and its media operations in Iraq cost more than $100 million a year on average. It's remarkable that an operation on this scale has been totally ignored in the midst of so much focus on "fake news" here in the U.S.

Did You Know?

200,000 Wisconsin Voters Were Kept Away From the Polls, and Trump Won the State by 22,000 Votes

The 2016 election was the first election in 50 years without the full protection of the Voting Rights Act, first passed in 1965. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), a 5-4 conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key provision requiring jurisdictions with a history of violations to "pre-clear" changes. As a result, changes to voting laws in nine states and parts of six others with long histories of racial discrimination in voting were no longer subject to federal approval in advance.

Since Shelby, 14 states, including many Southern states and key swing states, implemented new voting restrictions, in many cases just in time for the election. These included restrictive voter-identification laws in Texas and North Carolina, English-only elections in many Florida counties, as well as last-minute changes of poll locations, and changes in Arizona voting laws that had previously been rejected by the U.S. Department of Justice before the Shelby decision.

Ari Berman, author of Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America, was foremost among a small number of non-mainstream journalists to cover the suppression efforts and their results. In May 2017, he reported on an analysis by Priorities U.S.A. of the effects of voter suppression, which showed that strict voter-ID laws in Wisconsin and other states resulted in a "significant reduction" in voter turnout in 2016 with "a disproportionate impact on African-American and Democratic-leaning voters." Berman noted that turnout was reduced by 200,000 votes in Wisconsin, while Donald Trump won the state by just over 22,000 votes.

Nationwide, the study found that the change in voter turnout from 2012 to 2016 was significantly impacted by new voter-ID laws. In counties that were more than 40 percent African-American, turnout dropped 5 percent with new voter-ID laws, compared to 2.2 percent without. In counties that were less than 10 percent African-American, turnout decreased 0.7 percent with new voter-ID laws, compared to a 1.9 percent increase without. As Berman concluded, "This study provides more evidence for the claim that voter-ID laws are designed not to stop voter impersonation fraud, which is virtually nonexistent, but to make it harder for certain communities to vote."

As Berman noted in an article published by Moyers & Company in December 2016, the topic of "gutting" the Voting Rights Act did not arise once during the 26 presidential debates prior to the election, and "cable news devoted hours and hours to Trump's absurd claim that the election was rigged against him while spending precious little time on the real threat that voters faced."

Did You Know?

The Trump Campaign Used Computer Analytics to Craft His Message

When Richard Nixon first ran for Congress in 1946, he and his supporters used a wide range of dirty tricks aimed at smearing his opponent as pro-Communist, including a boiler-room operation generating phone calls to registered Democrats, which simply said, "This is a friend of yours, but I can't tell you who I am. Did you know that Jerry Voorhis is a Communist?" Then the caller would hang up.

In 2016, the same basic strategy was employed but with decades of refinement, technological advances, and massively more money behind it. A key player in this was right-wing computer scientist and hedge-fund billionaire Robert Mercer, who contributed $13.5 million to Trump's campaign and also funded Cambridge Analytica, a data analytics company that specializes in "election management strategies" and using "psychographic" microtargeting—based on thousands of pieces of data for some 220 million American voters—as Carole Cadwalladr reported for The Guardian in February 2017.

After Trump's victory, Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix said, "We are thrilled that our revolutionary approach to data-driven communication has played such an integral part in President-elect Trump's extraordinary win."

Cambridge Analytica's parent company, Strategic Communication Laboratories, was more old-school until recently in elections across Europe, Africa and the Caribbean. In Trinidad, it paid for the painting of graffiti slogans purporting to be from grassroots youth. In Nigeria, it advised its client party to suppress the vote of the opposition "by organizing anti-poll rallies on the day of the election."

But now the company can micro-target its deceptive, disruptive messaging. "Pretty much every message that Trump put out was data-driven" after Cambridge Analytica joined the campaign, Nix said in September 2016. On the day of the third presidential debate, Trump's team "tested 175,000 different ad variations for his arguments" via Facebook.

This messaging had everything to do with how those targeted would respond, not with Trump's or Mercer's views. With the real patterns of influence, ideology, money, power and belief hidden from view, the very concept of democratic self-governance is now fundamentally at risk.

Did You Know?

Pharmaceutical Companies Are Accidentally Creating "Superbugs" That Resist Antibiotics

The problem of antibiotics giving rise to more dangerous drug-resistant germs ("superbugs") has been present since the early days of penicillin, but it has now reached a crisis, with companies creating dangerous superbugs when their factories leak industrial waste, as reported by Madlen Davies of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in September 2016.

Factories in China and India—where the majority of worldwide antibiotics are manufactured—have released "untreated waste fluid" into local soils and waters, leading to increases in antimicrobial resistance that diminish the effectiveness of antibiotics and threaten the foundations of modern medicine.

"After bacteria in the environment become resistant, they can exchange genetic material with other germs, spreading antibiotic resistance around the world, according to an assessment issued by the European Public Health Alliance, which served as the basis for Davies' news report," Projected Censored explained. One strain of drug-resistant bacterium that originated in India in 2014 has since spread to 70 other countries.

Superbugs have already killed an estimated 25,000 people across Europe—thus globally posing "as big a threat as terrorism," according to U.K. National Health Service chief medical officer Dame Sally Davies.

Did You Know?

The Navy Is Killing Pacific Sea Otters With Torpedoes

The U.S. Navy has killed, injured or harassed marine mammals in the North Pacific almost 12 million times over a five-year period, according to research conducted by the West Coast Action Alliance and reported by Dahr Jamail for news website Truthout.

This includes whales, dolphins, porpoises, sea lions and other marine wildlife, including endangered species like humpback whales, blue whales, gray whales, sperm whales, Steller sea lions and sea otters.

As the Alliance noted, this does not include impacts on "endangered and threatened seabirds, fish, sea turtles or terrestrial species" due to Navy activities, which have expanded dramatically, according to the Navy's October 2015 environmental impact statement, including:

•    A 778 percent increase in the number of torpedoes fired
•    A 400 percent increase in air-to-surface missile exercises (including in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary)
•    A 1,150 percent increase in drone aircraft
•    An increase from none to 284 sonar testing events in
inland waters

"It is, and has been for quite some time now, well known in the scientific community that the Navy's use of sonar can damage and kill marine life," Jamail reported.

Did You Know?

Women Are Dying in Childbirth Far More Often in the U.S., Even as Other Countries Make Pregnancy Safer

The U.S. maternal mortality rate is rising, while it's falling elsewhere across the developed world. Serious injuries and complications are needlessly even more widespread with shockingly little attention being paid.

"Each year, over 600 women in the U.S. die from pregnancy-related causes, and over 65,000 experience life-threatening complications or severe maternal morbidity," Elizabeth Dawes Gay reported, covering an April 2016 congressional briefing organized by Women's Policy Inc. "The average national rate of maternal mortality has increased from 12 per 100,000 live births in 1998 to 15.9 in 2012, after peaking at 17.8 in 2011."

"The U.S. is the only nation in the developed world with a rising maternal mortality rate," then-U.S. Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) stated at the meeting.

"Inadequate health care in rural areas and racial disparities are drivers of this maternal health crisis," Project Censored summarized. "Nationally, African-American women are three to four times more likely than white women to die from pregnancy-related causes, with rates even higher in parts of the U.S. that Gay characterized as 'pockets of neglect,' such as Georgia, where the 2011 maternal mortality rate of 28.7 per 100,000 live births was nearly double the national average."

Did You Know?

The Democratic National Committee Says It Can Legally Pick Whomever It Wants as the Presidential Nominee

A key story about 2016 election has mostly been ignored by the media—a class action lawsuit alleging that the Democratic National Committee broke legally binding neutrality agreements in the Democratic primaries by strategizing to make Hillary Clinton the nominee before a single vote was cast. (WW editor's note: The lawsuit has since been dismissed.)

The lawsuit was filed against the DNC and its former chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in June 2016 by Beck & Lee, a Miami law firm, on behalf of supporters of Bernie Sanders. A hearing was held on the suit in April 2017 in which DNC lawyers argued that neutrality was not actually required and that the court had no jurisdiction to assess neutral treatment.

As Michael Sainato reported for The Observer, DNC attorneys claimed that Article V, Section 4 of the committee's charter—which instructs the DNC chair and staff to ensure neutrality in the Democratic presidential primaries—is actually "a discretionary rule" that the committee "didn't need to adopt to begin with." In addition, DNC attorney Bruce Spiva later said it was within the committee's rights to "go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way."

Did You Know?

Governments Across the Globe Shut Down Internet Access to Quiet Protests

In 2016, governments around the world shut down internet access more than 50 times, according to the digital rights organization Access Now, "suppressing elections, slowing economies and limiting free speech," as Lyndal Rowlands reported for the Inter Press Service.

"In the worst cases, internet shutdowns have been associated with human rights violations," Rowlands was told by Deji Olukotun of Access Now. "What we have found is that internet shutdowns go hand in hand with atrocities." Olukotun said.

Kevin Collier also covered the report for news site Vocativ, noting that Access Now uses a "conservative metric," counting "repeated, similar outages"—like those that occurred during Gabon's widely criticized internet "curfew"—as a single instance.

"Many countries intentionally blacked out internet access during elections and to quell protest. Not only do these shutdowns restrict freedom of speech, they also hurt economies around the world," Project Censored notes.

"Understanding what this means for internet users can be difficult," Azad Essa reported for Al Jazeera in May 2017. Advocates of online rights "need to be constantly pushing for laws that protect this space and demand that governments meet their obligations in digital spaces just as in non-digital spaces," he was told by the U.N.'s special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye.