Media Watch is, as the name suggests, a media watchdog program on our Australia wide public (non commercial) television broadcaster. I received a reply within moments. Automated response of course. Hopefully that is not the only response. Hopefully my essay will help other readers who might still have difficulties believing that 911 is not satisfactorily or even competently explained by the officially sanctioned reports to find out for themselves.

Dear Media Watch,

If part of the purpose of your program is to criticise and bring to the viewer's attention serious shortcomings in media behaviour, then I believe it is imperative you mention, though I believe it deserves a whole program or more, the almost complete lack of coverage of what may prove to be the most crucial issues in modern political history.

I am deeply concerned by what appears to be deliberate censorship of what may prove to be the most critical news out of the United States of America ever. There are growing, in numbers and in sophistication, individuals and groups around the world, but importantly in the US, who are extremely critical of the officially sanctioned reports, and who are putting forward alternative theories to the official reports for several of the events of September 11, 2001, and for events leading up to that day, and since.

A web-journal from the Netherlands posted this interesting analysis a while back, I haven't seen it posted here: Why the media ignored 9/11

The official theory regarding the events of September 11th is a bad conspiracy theory. It's a shaky theory any way you look at it, it even runs counter to some laws of nature, and it relies entirely on the shock effect felt by the public, and in turn the media, for its success. Sometimes journalists are just people. They also felt the shock of 9/11, and they also went along with the Bush administration's flimsy theory. This consensus over what the truth is behind September 11th falls within a familiar pattern. According to this pattern, during the first few hours following a sudden, large-scale incident, there is a totally free press. What then follows is general agreement. Meanwhile five years have gone by, and the Old Media are lagging behind the facts that are being presented by the New Media.

Looking back we can see that the Old Media also followed the pattern on September 11th - on the day itself the spirit of journalism was alive and well, and everything under the sun was freely reported. Explosions in the WTC were reported by the major television networks. In an overview of the day, the major Dutch newspaper Trouw wrote: '09:58 Huge explosion underneath the WTC'; anchor Peter Jennings explains [WMV] on live television that during a controlled demolition explosions have to take place at the bottom of the building; another anchorman, Dan Rather, compares [MPG] the collapse of WTC7 to a controlled demolition; CNN is basically reporting that no evidence exists to suggest that an airplane crashed into the Pentagon, and FOX is saying that the only thing you can see in Pennsylvania is a hole in the ground. The consensus that Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks didn't evolve quite so organically though.

Even though the attack apparently was a huge surprise, President Bush was nevertheless quick to unravel the mystery, including the use of photos: Osama bin Laden and his 19 thieves had managed to surprise the U.S., and now it was time for revenge. The much-anticipated "father to the country", one who would provide comfort in a time of crisis and would call for the biggest CSI in the history of mankind, never showed up. No Crime Scene Investigation ever took place because all of the debris was immediately hauled away and sold to China as scrap metal, and while everyone was seeking consolation, Bush spoke of vengeance. Following Bush's revelation, the facts were adapted to fit the fiction - the explosions that were heard were hushed up along with the many other impossibilities, like the vaporizing of the airplanes in the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, and inconsistencies such as the pools of melted steel at the bottom of the WTC towers, the free fall of WTC7 and, well, all the other facts that the internet is flush with.

Continued...

He said, she said: Who’s right? - CNN.com

Former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have traded sharp words this week over which administration – Clinton’s or President Bush’s -- did more to pursue Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network. Who do you think is right? Why?

You'll notice that all of these news organizations are covering this issue by simply phrasing the argument as who did better, or who is more at fault. Perhaps a few thousand emails with some real facts and questions will get the point across - that we are still being lied to, and that the media still doesn't understand its role in holding government officials to account - no matter what side of the 2 party paradigm they fall under.

Please take a few minutes and send in an 'I-Report' as to the failures of this administration and the previous one, obviously they need the help.

I recently saw the classic hit movie "Network" for the first time. Hands down one of the best movies ever made.

If you have not seen it, you will be shocked by how this decades-old film has succesffully predicted, with stunning accuracy, the hypnotic-like control the mainstream media currently holds over the masses. Here, truth is definitely stranger than fiction.

If you have seen this movie, you will find the following MEDIA CLIP to be especially enlightening.

God help us... if by now, we are not yet "MAD AS HELL!!!"