Back to Basics (Truth v. Lies)
In a recent blog, a highly placed truther (Griffin?) suggests ignoring the specific disinformation agents, and focusing on the historical record of disinformation tactics.
This may be more of an academic exercise than a public relations strategy, however.
I would suggest rather that we instead frame the issue on our terms (in places where a mainstream audience dwells). This would render the "theories" moot and irrelevant.
1. Validating the need for truth.
How many lies can you find uttered by high ranking government officials? We should start a web page with just that debunking of official statements. My own favorite is Ari Fleischer aboard air force one on 9/11: "No warnings."
2. Similarly, we have the omissions, the substantial facts that were never investigated. Another page could list exhaustively all the omissions we can find. Griffin's work is excellent in this regard.
3. The synthesis: They lie, so we want the truth.
If we can prove dishonesty, omission, and worse, we are vindicated. We retain the high ground, as well as a solid grounding not based on flights of fancy, opinion, or deception.
It is the theorizing that should be discarded, especially when dealing with mainstream journals and websites. That's what they complain about, so shift the focus, outflank their by-the-numbers arguments, and come around the rear.
Documented lies prompt us to seek the truth. If they didn't lie and cover up, we wouldn't be wasting our lives exposing it. There would be nothing to talk about.
Even the sneering "debunkers" often acknowledge the statements of Kean and Hamilton that they did provide a half baked pack of lies -- or however they phrased it. This is an opportunity to expand on a front that they themselves have opened.
As for the in-your-face tireless assaults of the disinformation agents, I've already made my position on them pretty clear. And I hope there's a special circle (jerk) in hell for those twats.