Why isn't the truth out there? -- Guardian

[Khephra]

Why isn't the truth out there?

The willingness of journalists to accepts the establishment's view of the events of, and after, 9/11 is truly staggering, says Paul Donovan

Sunday October 5, 2003

One of the major weaknesses of journalism today is how easily some are seduced by power. The premier role of the journalist should be as a check on power, however, many seem to turn this dictum on its head and get greater job satisfaction as parrots of the official truth.

Nowhere is this tendency more prevalent than amongst Parliamentary lobby correspondents in Westminster. It has been the supine nature of many of these individuals that has allowed the likes of Alastair Campbell and co to become so powerful in spinning their version of events to the wider world.

There is much rubbish talked about spin when what it really amounts to is putting an emphasis on a story that is favourable to a valued contact and acceptable to the owner of the media organisation concerned. The easiest spinning comes of course when the interests of the source and the owner coincide.

The ease with which journalists are seduced by the powerful was nicely illustrated recently by Simon Hoggart in the Guardian. Writing the diary, Hoggart went into some detail as to why Dr David Kelly could not have been murdered. Justifying the depth of his analysis Hoggart stated "I mention this only because the internet mill, favoured by Michael Meacher in his researches into 9/11, will no doubt grind out more conspiracy theories." Hoggart continued, confirming his touching relationship with power, describing Lord Hutton's "soft, educated almost beguiling Ulster accent." In these few words Hoggart proved himself to be completely taken in by the establishment figure whilst dismissing anyone, like Meacher, who might suggest the whole train of events that led to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had more than a touch of coincidence to them.

more...............

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1056502,00.html

[wtmusic]

1. Media ownership rules

Pure and simple.

[T_i_B]

2. There is something conspiratorial about the Meacher article

For those who inhabit a world outside of the Parliamentary lobby, the views expressed by Meacher as to the way the whole 9/11 scenario and what followed so easily fitted with the Bush administration's agenda is anything but conspiratorial.

Sorry, but after reading the Meacher article in question here. I did come away with the feeling that Meacher WAS suggesting and implying that there was a conspiracy to allow 9//1 to happen.

Here is the article by Michael Meacher. This article has caused a lot of controversy over here. Make of this what you will.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1036571,00.html

It is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.

It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".

All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.

Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."