So much space devoted to mindless, dismissive ridicule and hand-waving, so little time devoted to any kind of investigative journalism. If you're a glutton for punishment or just want a handy compilation of the corporate media's extreme bias and neglect of duty, this one's for you. More than thirty 10th anniversary hit pieces in one place...
With little regard for those family members who question the official account of the 9/11 attacks, mainstream media news outlets have published over 30 inaccurate, derogatory, and stereotyping hit pieces in the 2 weeks leading up to the tenth anniversary of the attacks. Among the articles there are many common themes, sources, logical fallacies and insults. The mainstream media has offered an unprecedented level of apparent bias against reasonable people invested in justice for the victims of 9/11.
Please add this to Alternet's comments. I am unable to do so.
Cynthia McKinney is in the news!
And this will only increase as we approach November. She's being covered everywhere right now, C-SPAN, Time, Democracy Now, etc.
I note that some creative journalists are inserting the fictional claim that she lost elections -- any election will do -- because of her statements that the Bush Administration covered up information about the 9/11 attacks. There is zero evidence for these claims, but it's likely they're trying to shut her up now by creating this obvious falsehood, a message. The hardcore left gatekeepers like Huffington Post will unite with the far right on the issue of taking down anyone who speaks out on 9/11.
Replies to Mr Beams article by Boston 9/11 Truth activist Christopher Gruener follows.
You can respectfully email Mr Beam at email@example.com.
Boston 9/11 truth responses are below the article.
The return of the black helicopters
By Alex Beam
Globe Columnist / June 30, 2008
My friend, the critic Katherine Powers, has spotted an interesting theme in books flowing across her desk for review - paranoia. Coming this fall: John Demos's "The Enemy Within: 2,000 Years of Witch-hunting in the Western World." Demos is a Bancroft award-winning historian emeritus at the World's Second Greatest University (Yale), who once wrote a Wall Street Journal commentary suggesting that it might be time to pardon America's 17th-century witches. So soon?
"... and Popular Mechanics’ issue on the subject is a good place to start."
-Singer turned pundit, David Rovics/CommonDreams.org
CommonDreams is a highly visited "progressive" news site. The focus there is mainly on reprinting corporate-produced pieces that somehow share the biases of the editors. They do also however print editorials from freelance writers, and when the issue of the 9/11 cover up is breached, only one side is permitted to weigh in. And that side is permitted to outright attack and to libel the other side, the 'other' side being the amorphous "9/11 Truth Movement."
No response in kind is permitted; it doesn't matter the content, nor the quality of the evidence. This policy has rightly earned CommonDreams the reputation of "gatekeepers" among disgruntled readers.
For its October 16 issue, the New Yorker’s Nicholas Lemann has penned what I would call a soft-hit-piece on 9/11 Truth, entitled: “Paranoid Style---How conspiracy theories become news.” The article does a kind of meta-handwaving-dismissal, not by poo-pooing the Truth Movement directly, but instead by pish-poshing the coverage (in the news and documentary film) of Truth research. The implication here is that the coverage is just an inevitable by-product to some doubly inconsequential fringe cult, so never you mind anything else you may see in print or on screen.
The method is duly served by the New Yorker’s characterization of Richard Hofstadter, the ideological father behind conspiracy-theory-derision, as having been “one of the country’s leading intellectuals,” and then going on to treat his superficial, supercilious bull-shill as exhaustive explanation for the unfortunate “phenomenon” of conspiracy theoretics. Case in point? What else? Loose Change. About that, the writer, with the smug distraction characteristic of all the New Yorker’s most deliciously insubstantial pontifications, opines: “To engage in huffy denunciation of the journalistic shortcomings of ‘Loose Change’ would probably not change the minds of many of its fans.” Of course we know it’s not worth your time kind sir, but you favor us with examples yet! “Commercial flights did not hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon…United Flight 93 was diverted to Cleveland and its passengers taken to an empty NASA research facility…two AA flights that crashed that morning had not been scheduled to fly…” etc. [Editor’s note: LC guys, what was that part about the NASA warehouse all about, anyway?]