Rosebud #15
Conspiracies, Fascism, and the Media
I went to a showing of the 9/11 documentary Loose Change last week at Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn. The film was met with a running chorus of “That’s rights” and “Mm-hmms” at the evidence onscreen, as well as laughter when members of the Bush administration could be seen explaining the so-called “official story.”
The young African-Americans in the auditorium seemed to have no problem with the idea that the Bush government has lied to the American people about 9/11, and that there are many questions still left unanswered—which is also the contention of many of the victims’ families (see Rosebud #11, below).
Increasingly in this country, we live in separate realities, realities based on experience, information and political point of view. This is where the media comes in. Ironically enough, the very media that ignores the hard questions about 9/11 and treats those who ask them as “nutjobs”—as University of Wisconsin professor Kevin Barrett was called outright recently on Hannity and Combs (see the clip at www.youtube.com)—is the same media which has provided the basis for many of the questions still being asked.
Asked by between 40% and 60% of Americans, according to recent Zogby and Scripps Howard polls—with 1 in 3 now saying they believe the Bush government was actually “involved” in 9/11 (Reuters, 9/17/06)—although rarely by the media itself.
Ironically, it is the same media that produced the “loose change” of information which 22-year-old director Dylan Avery assembled as evidence of government involvement in 9/11 in his film (which you can see at www.seeloosechange.com or on Google Video, where it has been viewed by tens of millions in America and around the globe).
The 9/11 truth movement has finally become a story, making the cover of Time, two weeks ago (“Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won’t Go Away,” www.time.com), and the Washington Post (“The Disbelievers”), www.washingtonpost.com). A story framed thusly: so are they really nuts, or what?
The 9/11 truth movement has become a story.
And yet the truth of 9/11 is still not a story. Why?
“There was a time in South Africa,” Dan Rather said in a BBC interview in 2002, talking about the climate for journalists in America post-9/11, “that people would put flaming tires around people's necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions, and to continue to bore in on the tough questions so often. And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism." (As we know, last year Rather was ousted from CBS after reporting a story questioning President Bush’s National Guard service, based on falsified documents that had been leaked to him.)
And then there is this troubling document, posted on President Bush’s web site before the fifth anniversary of 9/11: “Strategy for Winning the War on Terror” (www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/sectionV.html).
“The terrorism we confront today,” the president (or someone on behalf of the president), writes, “springs from: Political alienation… Grievances that can be blamed on others,” and “Subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation.”
“Terrorists recruit more effectively," the president says, "from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories."
Since “conspiracy theories” is the way in which the American media typically characterizes the still unanswered questions about 9/11, you have to wonder if what the president is suggesting here.
Is he saying that people who wonder why he sat in his chair for seven minutes after being informed that the country was under attack are creating a climate that is conducive to terrorist recruitment?
Is he saying that the tens of millions of Americans—hardly a “subculture”— who believe that his administration was actually “involved” in 9/11, according to a recent poll, are somehow helping terrorists “recruit”?
I would suggest that just the opposite is true. Any potential terrorist who sees the American people now demanding answers about 9/11 from the Bush government might actually be less inclined to want to destroy America.
9/11 has become the justification for: the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, a war in which tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, and thousands of American servicemen and women, have been killed; the baseless arrest and jailing of hundreds of political prisoners who are now rotting in Guantanamo Bay without access to lawyers or trials, men who have not even been charged with any crime; domestic spying; torture.
Americans are not in lock-step with this agenda by any means. Couldn’t it be argued—and hasn’t it been argued, extensively—that it is in fact the reckless policies of the Bush administration which has created a climate in which terrorists “recruit more effectively”?
What is so very troubling about the president’s contention is that it would seem to be trying to establish a basis for terrorist speech or even terrorist thinking. Forgive me for using a word that is too often misused, these days, including by the president himself, but in this case I believe it applies: That is fascist.
The First Amendment protects our right to ask questions and state our opinions—in the media, on the Internet, in our homes and offices. Without being accused of aiding or condoning terrorism.
Americans who want the truth about 9/11 are not terrorists. They want to know who is responsible for this hideous crime and to bring these people to justice. No matter who they are. Americans want answers.
The American media is doing itself no favors by trivializing and demonizing anyone’s search for truth. The Bush administration has already shown itself to be antagonistic toward journalists—restricting access, refusing to answer questions—even antagonistic to the truth itself.
What do journalists stand to gain by jumping on the administration’s anti-truth bandwagon? Not the confidence of the many millions of Americans who do not see their own questions being asked by their media.
My friend’s little boy, who is 8, recently heard about the questions around 9/11 in the schoolyard. (Elementary school children are talking about it, but still not the American media.) The little boy seemed unfazed by the possibility that the U.S. government was involved. “He said, ‘It’s like when somebody hits somebody in the back and then says somebody else did it, right? And then they get that person in trouble.’”
Check out www.belowgroundsurface.org, www.9/11truth.org, www.9/11blogger.com, www.scholarsfortruth.org.
I went to a showing of the 9/11 documentary Loose Change last week at Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn. The film was met with a running chorus of “That’s rights” and “Mm-hmms” at the evidence onscreen, as well as laughter when members of the Bush administration could be seen explaining the so-called “official story.”
The young African-Americans in the auditorium seemed to have no problem with the idea that the Bush government has lied to the American people about 9/11, and that there are many questions still left unanswered—which is also the contention of many of the victims’ families (see Rosebud #11, below).
Increasingly in this country, we live in separate realities, realities based on experience, information and political point of view. This is where the media comes in. Ironically enough, the very media that ignores the hard questions about 9/11 and treats those who ask them as “nutjobs”—as University of Wisconsin professor Kevin Barrett was called outright recently on Hannity and Combs (see the clip at www.youtube.com)—is the same media which has provided the basis for many of the questions still being asked.
Asked by between 40% and 60% of Americans, according to recent Zogby and Scripps Howard polls—with 1 in 3 now saying they believe the Bush government was actually “involved” in 9/11 (Reuters, 9/17/06)—although rarely by the media itself.
Ironically, it is the same media that produced the “loose change” of information which 22-year-old director Dylan Avery assembled as evidence of government involvement in 9/11 in his film (which you can see at www.seeloosechange.com or on Google Video, where it has been viewed by tens of millions in America and around the globe).
The 9/11 truth movement has finally become a story, making the cover of Time, two weeks ago (“Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won’t Go Away,” www.time.com), and the Washington Post (“The Disbelievers”), www.washingtonpost.com). A story framed thusly: so are they really nuts, or what?
The 9/11 truth movement has become a story.
And yet the truth of 9/11 is still not a story. Why?
“There was a time in South Africa,” Dan Rather said in a BBC interview in 2002, talking about the climate for journalists in America post-9/11, “that people would put flaming tires around people's necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions, and to continue to bore in on the tough questions so often. And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism." (As we know, last year Rather was ousted from CBS after reporting a story questioning President Bush’s National Guard service, based on falsified documents that had been leaked to him.)
And then there is this troubling document, posted on President Bush’s web site before the fifth anniversary of 9/11: “Strategy for Winning the War on Terror” (www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/sectionV.html).
“The terrorism we confront today,” the president (or someone on behalf of the president), writes, “springs from: Political alienation… Grievances that can be blamed on others,” and “Subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation.”
“Terrorists recruit more effectively," the president says, "from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories."
Since “conspiracy theories” is the way in which the American media typically characterizes the still unanswered questions about 9/11, you have to wonder if what the president is suggesting here.
Is he saying that people who wonder why he sat in his chair for seven minutes after being informed that the country was under attack are creating a climate that is conducive to terrorist recruitment?
Is he saying that the tens of millions of Americans—hardly a “subculture”— who believe that his administration was actually “involved” in 9/11, according to a recent poll, are somehow helping terrorists “recruit”?
I would suggest that just the opposite is true. Any potential terrorist who sees the American people now demanding answers about 9/11 from the Bush government might actually be less inclined to want to destroy America.
9/11 has become the justification for: the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, a war in which tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, and thousands of American servicemen and women, have been killed; the baseless arrest and jailing of hundreds of political prisoners who are now rotting in Guantanamo Bay without access to lawyers or trials, men who have not even been charged with any crime; domestic spying; torture.
Americans are not in lock-step with this agenda by any means. Couldn’t it be argued—and hasn’t it been argued, extensively—that it is in fact the reckless policies of the Bush administration which has created a climate in which terrorists “recruit more effectively”?
What is so very troubling about the president’s contention is that it would seem to be trying to establish a basis for terrorist speech or even terrorist thinking. Forgive me for using a word that is too often misused, these days, including by the president himself, but in this case I believe it applies: That is fascist.
The First Amendment protects our right to ask questions and state our opinions—in the media, on the Internet, in our homes and offices. Without being accused of aiding or condoning terrorism.
Americans who want the truth about 9/11 are not terrorists. They want to know who is responsible for this hideous crime and to bring these people to justice. No matter who they are. Americans want answers.
The American media is doing itself no favors by trivializing and demonizing anyone’s search for truth. The Bush administration has already shown itself to be antagonistic toward journalists—restricting access, refusing to answer questions—even antagonistic to the truth itself.
What do journalists stand to gain by jumping on the administration’s anti-truth bandwagon? Not the confidence of the many millions of Americans who do not see their own questions being asked by their media.
My friend’s little boy, who is 8, recently heard about the questions around 9/11 in the schoolyard. (Elementary school children are talking about it, but still not the American media.) The little boy seemed unfazed by the possibility that the U.S. government was involved. “He said, ‘It’s like when somebody hits somebody in the back and then says somebody else did it, right? And then they get that person in trouble.’”
Check out www.belowgroundsurface.org, www.9/11truth.org, www.9/11blogger.com, www.scholarsfortruth.org.
posted by NancyJo at 9:48 AM
<< Home