(actually, the fact that FAIR is financed by evil people is really not surprising--it's the kind of 'even-handed' watchdog group, established in media circles you can fund to look balanced, like the brookings institution or the Kerry campaign; not that I think those are like each other in many other respects)
As for my other concerns:
First of all, prima facie this appears to be a group of fanatics (not fanatical for being left or cynical but for being tightly tied to one voice) following Mike Ruppert--who, by the way, is awesome. Just look at their lead topics and their language--Peak Oil, Dick Cheney's responsibility for 9/11, stolen elections, WWIV. Being stuck in a single set of ideas can be dangerous. I may well be wrong in this assessment, but it bothers me.
Second, they reference single articles by people as evidence--admittedly, it would be a good idea with some precedent to establish a front for a specific sniping purpose, but presumably the funding flows at least started before 9/11? Of course, they may have been planning long in advance, but still. It's not even clear to me that independent reporting on this subject would weaken the administration--it might just make us look 'kookier' if we were right. And the slow progress on the 9/11 issue is, I think, based primarily on the secrecy of the administration. Whether that is intimately interconnected with media complicity and would collapse or falter without it, I don't know.
Third, I am not really convinced at all, by Ruppert or anyone else, that there is a powerful case making it seem likely that the government was responsible for 9/11. I think there is a good enough argument that resources should be directed toward it, but the assumption that it is ironclad doesn't hold water with me.
Fourth, despite the fact that Ruppert is awesome, I'm not QUITE sure I trust him. This is for a number of reasons, and my mistrust of him is probably mostly irrelevant, but see Counterpunch. Of course, Counterpunch is on trial here so maybe that would be unfair.
Fifth, even if all of these theories concerning 9/11 and JFK are true (which is quite possible, I would say probable without a pause), you cannot fault intellectuals like Chomsky for not spending inordinate amounts of time, or even really any given their jadedness, on such theories when social analysis is their purview. In fact, I really couldn't blame anyone, even a professional journalist, for not being immediately turned off by THE ADMINISTRATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11, especially on websites that look very unprofessional. I know journalists are supposed to see past things like that, but hey, we're all human.
Sixth, Bensky is quite right to say that all of these people don't really KNOW each other.
Seventh, with regard primarily to later funding, but also to earlier funding, the funding may be a result, rather than a cause, of apathy with regard to these theories.
Eighth, Even if Katrina van den Heuvel and Alexander Cockburn are dark, twisted monsters who do snipe-work for the establishment, if it is so well hidden does that not acquit Eric Alterman and Greg Moses?
Quoting Chomsky, they speak of the danger of constricting debate to a small sector and creating lively debate within it. What better way to do that than to carry it out WITHIN PROGRESSIVE CIRCLES, particularly when speaking about credibility? I'm not saying that's what's going on, simply that the beliebability of a one-sided evil agenda is balanced by the believability of the other.
Finally, look at this
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/store/index.shtmlRampant commercialism? I think so.
Regarding quotations:
http://www.oilempire.us/gatekeepers.html#palastI think you'll find that the idea that McKinney suggested there WAS foreknowledge, particularly when she was in the position to advocate an investigation, fits better with Palast's account than with oilempire.us's. Besides, Palast is talking about media irresponsibility, meaning they are supposed to take VERY LITERALLY what people say, in the interests of being objective. As for the deliberate fabrication of a quote, there are two ways of interpreting that idea. One is oilempire's, which is that there was the idea that a quote existed, the content of which is made up. The other is the existence of a quote, the existence of which is made up. To my thinking, that is the more direct track of thinking. Anyone familiar with Palast's use of quotation marks will know that he is by no means necessarily referencing a reference by NPR to the existence of a 'quote', meaning that NPR said the word 'quote'. As for the appearance that the whole discussion of whether what McKinney said was equivalent to an indictment or a direct intimation is nitpicky, I have two responses. First, nitpicky is what media critics often are. Second, McKinney's position is that of, I think, many journalists and progressives--heavy suspicion, but not an irresponsible jump to conclusions. I do not suggest that FTW or oilempire have made such a jump; they have, after all, put in more time on the subject of 9/11 than we have. But it is possible.
Also, what is wrong with Bill Moyers? I see no lines leading funding IN. What's wrong with the Carnegie Foundation? Besides, the fact that dirty money flows into an entire FOUNDATION should surprise no one.
I choose oilempire because it seems to me the most responsible of the three links you gave me.
I'm getting really tired so I'm stopping now, but I'll be back.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(298 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
