Forum

profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

Media: A Decade of Whataboutery
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Media: A Decade of Whataboutery Reply with quote

I thought it might be useful to have a thread focussing on media misinformation, framing, censoring by omission and the psychology of perception management pertaining to 911 and the 911 wars.

Underwear, toothpaste, shampoo and shoes...
Nine Years After 9/11, Few See Terrorism as Top U.S. Problem
One percent see it as the top problem today, down from 46% in 2001
http://www.gallup.com/poll/142961/Nine-Years-Few-Terrorism-Top-Problem.aspx

Nine years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, 1% of Americans mention terrorism as the most important problem facing the country, down from 46% just after the attacks. Just before the attacks, in a Gallup poll conducted Sept. 7-10, 2001, less than one-half of 1% of Americans mentioned terrorism as the nation's most important problem. One month later, in October 2001, 46% named terrorism, the highest in Gallup's history.

From that point on, terrorism slowly faded as a response to this question, albeit with an uptick to 8% mentions in January of this year, reflecting the widespread news coverage of the "Christmas Day bomber

....Despite the drop in top-of-mind mentions of terrorism, Americans still say it is an important issue when they are reminded of it. Gallup recently asked Americans to rate the importance of a number of issues to their vote in this year's midterm elections, and 75% rated terrorism as an extremely or very important issue. Still, Americans rated economic issues such as the economy, jobs, and federal spending, as well as corruption in government and healthcare, even higher.
Thanks to MikeD posting on September 13, 2010, 10:40 am

With this Gallup Poll in mind, I thought of Stephen Lendman's section on Disinfomation - Part 111 in this review of Michel Chossudovsky's book War On Terrorism.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chossudovsky_Michel/War_Terrorism_bookreview.html

also this:

Is Anyone Telling Us The Truth?

-- What are we to make of the failed Underwear Bomber plot, the Toothpaste, Shampoo, and Bottled Water Bomber plot, and the Shoe Bomber plot? These blundering and implausible plots to bring down an airliner seem far removed from al-Qaida’s expertise in pulling off 9/11.

If we are to believe the U.S. government, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged al-Qaida "mastermind" behind 9/11, outwitted the CIA, the NSA, indeed all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies as well as those of all U.S. allies including Mossad, the National Security Council, NORAD, Air Traffic Control, Airport Security four times on one morning, and Dick Cheney, and with untrained and inexperienced pilots pulled off skilled piloting feats of crashing hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center towers, and the Pentagon, where a battery of state of the art air defenses somehow failed to function.

After such amazing success, al-Qaida would have attracted the best minds in the business, but, instead, it has been reduced to amateur stunts.

The Underwear Bomb plot is being played to the hilt on the TV media and especially on Fox "news." After reading recently that The Washington Post allowed a lobbyist to write a news story that preached the lobbyist’s interest, I wondered if the manufacturers of full body scanners were behind the heavy coverage of the Underwear Bomber, if not behind the plot itself. In America, everything is for sale. Integrity is gone with the wind.
- Paul Craig Roberts. January 08, 2010 "Information Clearing House"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24352.htm

Related:
The Politics of Paranoia and Intimidation.
- Floyd Rudmin, Professor of Social and Community Psychology
http://www.counterpunch.org/rudmin05242006.html


Last edited by marc on Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:16 pm; edited 11 times in total
Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:50 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

The Terrorism Scam - Paranoid Rhetoric amplified by media
David Chandler on being scammed into a frenzy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmov8bkU6dY
US Deaths from Tobacco in 2009 = 435 000
US civilian Deaths from Terrorism = 25
Wed Sep 15, 2010 12:02 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Perception Management Reply with quote

Perception Management = info ops; strategic communications; public affairs, public relations; influence ops; psychological ops

Pentagon planners define “perception management” as “actions to convey and (or) deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning. … In various ways, perception management combines truth projection, operations security, cover, and deception, and psychological operations.”

Are journalists savvy enough about perception management? Military perception management is two-pronged: aimed at both enemy and domestic populations. Pentagon-brand perception management aims to “influence emotions, motives, and objective reasoning”. Are journalists immune to having their emotions and objective reasoning influenced? In this era of 'perpetual war' do media colleges train graduates to recognise and assess these influences?

Officer Katie reports back from the Iraqi coalface: selling 'product' to the locals
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Intelligence+support+to+Psychological+Operations%3A+the+ongoing...-a0228278570

To Counter the Enemy's Perception Management
http://www.zcommunications.org/to-counter-the-enemys-perception-management-by-paul-street

"Today's prize for bad Orwellian prose goes to chief Pentagon spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita. "In the battle of perception management, where the enemy is clearly using the media to help manage perceptions of the general public," Di Rita says in today's New York Times, "our job is not perception management but to counter the enemy's perception management."

Note the absurd sense of defensive entitlement in this sentence. We are in "a battle of perception management" that we we have not initiated. "The enemy" started it.

"Right: there's no remarkable history and science of such management here in the United States, home to the most massively advertised and propagandized population and the greatest public relations ("perception management" if you like) industry known to humanity since at least the 1910s. No, we're just trying to do what we can in the face of the awesome thought-controlling capacities of .....Osama in his cave, the global media corporations owned by the Iraqi resistance forces, and the supposedly insidious anti-American Arab network Al-Jazeera.

"Yes, these powerful "perception managers" tell Arabs to hate us. It isn't the countless number of Arabs we kill, the resources we steal, the infrastructure we destroy, and the hateful regimes we support that elicit anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world.

"Note also the implicit suggestion that the US empire isn't "using the media" to influence mass opinion at home and abroad. Yes, it's about time that the Pentagon looked into trying to work with the media to influence mass perceptions.

According to the Times, Bush "administration officials say they are increasingly troubled that a nation that can so successfully market its cars and colas around the world, even to foreigners hostile to American policies, is failing to sell its democratic ideals, even as the insurgents they are battling are spreading falsehoods over mass media outlets like the Arab news satellite channel Al Jazeera."

"Falsehoods" like the accurate claim that the world's most powerful military has murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis, including a large number of noncombatants, in pursuit of unchallenged control over Arab oil resources"... continued at link

How To Sell a War: The Rendon Group deploys ‘perception management’ in the war on Iraq

http://www.monabaker.com/pMachine/more.php?id=A2101_0_1_0_M

"The paradox of the American war in Iraq... is that perception management has been much more successful at “influencing the emotions, motives, and objective reasoning” of the American people than it has been at reaching “foreign audiences.”

"When we see footage of Kuwaitis waving American flags, or of Iraqis cheering while U.S. Marines topple a statue of Saddam, it should be understood that those images target U.S. audiences as much, if not more, than the citizens of Kuwait or Iraq."

Nato's Strategic Communication

http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-IST-086///MP-IST-086-01.pdf

"When [the media] agree and amplify our messages it's wonderful, because we have a coherent chorus or an echo chamber.'' p.2

".. disseminating (carefully) co-ordinated issues, positions and talking points into a group of sympathetic media outlets with the aim of creating a so-called "echo chamber" that could repeat the message through a large number of channels for a long period". p.7

"War on Terror is not a war in the traditional sense but .. is a mixture of kinetic warfare and a war of ideas." There will necessarily be "an increase in interpenetration of war, politics/governance and media."
Thu Sep 16, 2010 4:23 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Project Censored 2011: Top Censored Stories 2009-2010 - Now available

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/how-the-world-changed-after-911/
Fri Sep 17, 2010 8:27 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

More on Project Censored
http://911truthnews.com/sf-bay-guardian-on-project-censored-and-911/

"Huff and former PC director Peter Phillips coauthored an op-ed exploring the concept of State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs), hoping to publish it through the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), a progressive think tank based in Washington, D.C. To their dismay, IPS rejected it. Huff found the decision cruelly ironic — he felt he’d been censored.....
"It’s clear that Project Censored is sensitive to the “conspiracy theorist” label, and as champions of free speech, the directors aren’t shy about addressing it head-on. The first item on the Investigative Research section of its website, for example, is a nearly 10,000-word article titled “Analysis of Project Censored: Are We A Left-Leaning, Conspiracy-Oriented Organization?”

Breaking news: Project Censored's Prof Huff and Dr Phillips censored by think-tank because their work is 'divisive' and threatening to the US 'heartland'.
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-09-21/project-censored-censored-because-stance-911-truth


Last edited by marc on Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:10 am; edited 3 times in total
Sat Sep 18, 2010 8:53 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: The real battlefield is the mind Reply with quote

"A deep, richly illustrated study of the nature and history of propaganda, featuring some of the world's most insightful critics".
- Mark Achbar; Film director; 'Manufacturing Consent', 'The Corporation'

"Psywar exposes the propaganda system, providing crucial background and insight into the control of information and thought."
- Kim Petersen, Dissident Voice

"Truly excellent" - William Blum, journalist, Author 'Killing Hope'
"Must See" - Tom Feeley, Information Clearing House
"A Lucid and insightful study of the manipulation of public consciousness...Take heed." - Michael Yates, Associate Editor, Monthly Review


PsyWar: The Real Battlefield is the Mind- by fimmaker Scott Noble
http://metanoia-films.org/psywar.php

http://911truthnews.com/who-really-benefits-from-911-and-the-war-on-terror/


Last edited by marc on Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
Thu Sep 23, 2010 7:55 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Cleall



Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 103

Post Post subject: Ethical Reflections on the 9/11 Controversy Reply with quote

Ethical Reflections on the 9/11 Controversy:

Do Information Science and Media Professionals Have a Duty to Provide Evidence-Based Information to a Questioning Public?

By Elizabeth Woodworth

Abstract: While it is recognized that through the use of meta-analysis and randomized controlled trials the standard of excellence in evidenced-based medicine (EBM) stands alone on a pinnacle, there is nonetheless an evidence-based methodology that can be applied across the board in other decision-making areas. Though research into the events of 9/11 has not yet attained the rigor achieved by EBM, it is still possible to rank the research in this field according to evidence-based principles. This article explains the principles, points to sources that exemplify them, and argues the ethical obligation of librarians and journalists to advance those sources .

September 24, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- Nine-eleven has done more to change the world’s political landscape than any other event since World War II.

And 9/11 is far from over: it triggered what Western leaders have declared an “endless” or “generational” war on terror. Even President Obama stated in March 2009 that the Afghan-Pakistan border region “has become the most dangerous place in the world” for the American people.i

Increasingly, however, the official account of its cause has come under rigorous scientific scrutiny and doubt. In Europe, strong media coverage followed the unchallenged 2009 discovery of high-tech military explosives in the World Trade Center dust.ii

Given the enormous international expense, suffering, and death that continue to hemorrhage from the wound of 9/11, it is vital that librarians and media professionals acquire the knowledge and ethical support to perform their part in addressing the rising tide of doubt.

1. Is there good reason to doubt the official account of 9/11?
Though the imagery of the events of September 11, 2001, is profoundly etched in the collective human memory, there is a growing body of scientific evidence suggesting that these events were not brought about in the manner described by The 9/11 Commission Report of 2004.iii

Harper’s magazine referred to the Commission’s report as:

“a cheat and a fraud. It stands as a series of evasive maneuvers that infantilize the audience, transform candor into iniquity, and conceal realities that demand immediate inspection and confrontation.”iv

The 9/11 Commissioners themselves reported the obstruction of their mandate by the C.I.A., in a New York Times editorial:

“What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.”v

Indeed a vast body of evidence refuting the official account has been compiled in the encyclopedic work The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, which was awarded Publishers Weekly’s “Pick of the Week” in November, 2008.vi

Its author, Dr. David Ray Griffin, was nominated in 2008 and 2009 for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on 9/11.

Dr. Griffin is controversial in the press, however. In September 2009, the New Statesman cited him as number 41 of "The 50 People Who Matter Today," complaining that his books had given "a sheen of respectability" to "one of the most pernicious global myths."vii The impact of the growing evidence – as revealed through 9/11 conferences, demonstrations, and public opinion polls – caused Guardian columnist George Monbiot to bemoan that “the anti-war movement has been largely co-opted in many places by the 9/11 Truth movement.”viii

Though controversial, the persistent questions about the 9/11 Commission findings show that the matter is far from settled – indeed thousands of professional people are calling for a transparent re-investigation into 9/11, with full subpoena power.ix

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26441.htm
Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:48 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Conflate & Smear 101:

Classic hit-piece from Wall Street Journal
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-09-27/wall-street-journal-doing-all-it-can-contain-911-truth-movement

and another in The New York POST
http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/local/menace_of_myths_D2F0yEdyFBqdnLmOUEV6NM

An ed at 911blogger writes: "This seems to be the beginning of a mission to paint the 9/11 truth movement as dangerous. Read Griffin's new book, "Cognitive Infiltration" for an update on the thinking in the Obama administration of how the growing "menace" can be contained. It would not be surprising if there is soon a 9/11 truther, or group, framed in some kind of violent crime, after which almost any method of containing the truth movement will seem acceptable to most Americans.


Last edited by marc on Fri Apr 15, 2011 10:17 am; edited 2 times in total
Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:18 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Re-Booting the Bullshit Detector Reply with quote

Squidman, I greatly enjoyed the humour and visuals in your recent post on the 911 Debate thread. You'll enjoy Parenti's humour, evident in his Conspiracy Theory lecture.

I've always been fascinated by the "conspiracy theorist" debate-stopper politicans and journalists like to lob at those who question official narrative. So it's good to see someone like Dr Michael Parenti skillfully defuse that grenade with great good humour, to the delight of the audience.
Parenti Kicks Ass - Bullshit Detector re-boot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRf-mTnKkTw&playnext=1&videos=8f1I-xUBFn0...

Partial transcript ..
“There are very few terms that are as effective in blunting political investigation. Few terms are more widespread and self-confirming in the press and public discourse and among ordinary citizens. Even among informed citizens you get someone who’s politically literate and you’re talking and suddenly he or she will go: “Is that a conspiracy theory you have there?”… And everyone goes "Eeeh"!

This conspiracy theory term is used to cover up all sorts of corruptions and departures from democratic governance.
It’s used to make the world safer for corporate plunder
It’s used to legitimate authorities
It’s used to make America safe for empty [hollowed-out] democracy
It’s used to dismiss critical investigation

The opinion makers are themselves always fabricating conspiracy theories. They just don’t call them conspiracy theories. They call them serious problems, like the need to fight another war. These fabricated conspiracies are given phoney conspiracy embellishment by top policy makers and uncritical coverage by the mainstream media. ... One function of this conspiracy to fabricate conspiracies is to cover up the real conspiracy.

[WMD in Iraq; links between Saddam and AlQaeda; the dog-and-pony show Colin Powell put out at the UN...]

If we define conspiracy theory as they do as criminal secret collusion with forethought and planned intent, [we see] conspiracy throughout the polity. Drug trafficking conspiracies, stolen election conspiracies, hedge fund and tax fund conspiracies, safety inspection conspiracies, money laundering conspiracies etc, etc. I quote a US justice Department official who said: “There are a thousand conspiracies…"

Here’s another conspiracy theory, a really goofy one – the 911 conspiracy theory. As I told my friend Norman Solomon when he resigned from Project Censored – because Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff looked into 911 - and he said to them: "you’re getting involved in conspiracy theories". I said, Norman – it’s all conspiracy theory: what do you think the other side is putting up? They tell us it's 17 young Saudi Arabians and two Egyptians who became great master pilots and flew those planes. That’s a conspiracy theory. There’s no lone assassin here, Norman. You can’t say a lone assassin flew these three planes and just for good luck flew a fourth one into a grassy knoll.
Bush himself introduced the “conspiracy theory”” phrase [into the mix] when he said “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories about 911”.

GW committed seven acts of cover-up after 911:
- he refused to appoint an investigating commission for 18 months
- when he was finally pressured to do so he appointed Henry Kissinger to head it – a man who built a career in duplicity and secrecy;
- He refused to appear before the 911 Commission (non-co-operation);
- He agreed to appear only before two commissioners – Kean and Hamilton
- He agreed to appear only in camera
- He refused to go under oath
- He refused to allow any transcripts or recordings.

"We keep getting promised transparency. But [these people] can’t function with transparency." Etc, etc…


Last edited by marc on Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:03 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: "Influencing global opinion" Reply with quote

"The truth is on our side" - Walter Isaacson, BBG.
The new Broadcasting Board of Governors Chief (ex CNN) wants more money to combat media "enemies" -
such as Chinese, Iranian, Venezuelan and Russian TV: "The truth is on our side."
[Caught this news Wednesday night on RT; I see Isaacson adjusted his statement a tad next afternoon]
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/10/05/new_bbg_chief_wants_more_money_to_combat_enemies_such_as_china_and_russia

Russia Today Responds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtyemTT8fXY

Of interest? From a UK Think Tank:
Russia Today, Putin and the 911 Nutters
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglasmurray/100026122/russia-today-putin-and-the-911-nutters/


Last edited by marc on Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:35 am; edited 3 times in total
Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:24 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Al-Qaeda or Al-Tricko: US Cries Wolf
F William Engdahl on the latest terror alerts - RT interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0JH9Y8zDMk


Last edited by marc on Sat Oct 09, 2010 7:49 am; edited 1 time in total
Sat Oct 09, 2010 7:42 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

BBC: Ministry of Information
"It has become increasingly clear that the BBC and its News departments are making a concerted effort to misinform and mislead the public."

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-08/bbc-ministry-information
Sat Oct 09, 2010 7:46 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

An Open Letter to Michael Goodwin of The New York Post
"It is important for you to understand, Mr. Goodwin, that not all those who question the events of 9/11 are conspiracy theorists. 9/11 Truth started, ostensibly, with the victim’s families and the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission which compiled questions in the wake of that tragedy. Many of these questions, to this day, remain unresolved... I suggest you reconsider the wisdom of using inflammatory terms like “A growing Muslim menace” when referring to the issue of 9/11 myths"
http://911truthnews.com/an-open-letter-to-michael-goodwin-of-the-new-york-post/
Mon Oct 11, 2010 9:12 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Project Censored: List of Top 25 stories of 2009-2010
Good news: Project Censored has expanded and now has over 30 university or college affiliates worldwide.
"A full Truth Emergency section debuts this year for “Censored 2011″ to address State Crimes Against Democracy as well as analysis of the corporate media spin that led to the Iraq War and continues to hide US allied atrocities in the Middle East."

Censored stories, not in order of importance:
1. Global Plans to Replace the Dollar
2. US Department of Defense is the Worst Polluter on the Planet
3. Internet Privacy and Personal Access at Risk
4. ICE Operates Secret Detention and Courts
5. Blackwater (Xe): The Secret US War in Pakistan
6. Health Care Restrictions Cost Thousands of Lives in US
7. External Capitalist Forces Wreak Havoc in Africa
8. Massacre in Peruvian Amazon over US Free Trade Agreement
9. Human Rights Abuses Continue in Palestine
10. US Funds and Supports the Taliban
11. The H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic: Manipulating Data to Enrich Drug Companies
12. Cuba Provided the Greatest Medical Aid to Haiti after the Earthquake
13. Obama Cuts Domestic Spending and Increases Military Corporate Welfare
14. Increased Tensions with Unresolved 9/11 Issues
15. Bhopal Water Still Toxic Twenty-five Years After Deadly Gas Leak
16. US Presidents Charged with Crimes Against Humanity as Universal Jurisdiction Dies in Spain
17. Nanotech Particles Pose Serious DNA Risks to Humans and the Environment
18. The True Cost of Chevron
19. Obama Administration Assures World Bank and International Monetary Fund a Free Reign of Abuse
20. Obama’s Charter School Policies Spread Segregation and Undermine Unions
21. Western Lifestyle Continues Environmental Footprint
22. 1.2 Billion People in India to be Given Biometric ID Cards
23. Afghan War: Largest Military Coalition in History
24. War Crimes of General Stanley McChrystal
25. Prisoners Still Brutalized at Gitmo
http://911truthnews.com/project-censored-top-25-stories-of-2010-includes-911-truth/
Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:05 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

No media coverage of the 'How The World Changed After 911' Conference which took place in New York this September.

The program included panel discussions on many subjects, including, for example: The Fourth Estate Fails In Its Duty - Danny Schechter, Kristina Borjesson (author of Into The Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press) and others.

Also Truth and Consequences: 'Resistance is Futile' , Or Is It? -
A look at gains and disappointments of different social and political movements since 9-11. Four leaders of the anti-war and social justice movements speak on their experiences and the struggle to mobilize people against war, oppression, and government policies after 9-11. Panelists will ... examine the current difficulty of mobilizing against the new friendly face of war under Barak Obama, as Bush's policies remain unchanged. This panel will also look at how differing analysis between leftist scholars and independent researchers on the events and repercussions of Sept. 11th, 2001 have split the left.
Moderator: Sam Husseini. Panelists: Cindy Sheehan: American activist; Elaine Brower: Military Families for Peace and 'World Can't Wait'; Matthis Chiroux: Iraq Vets Against the War; Sara Flounders: movement organizer, International Action Center
http://howtheworldchanged.org/program.html

It attracted some interesting speakers
- Dr Michael Parenti
- Cynthia McKinney
- Prof Robin Anderson, Media Studies, Fordham Uni
- Danny Schechter
- Matthis Chiroux, who served as an army photojournalist in Iraq and Afghanistan, was horrified by what he saw, discharged himself and is now an Iraq War Resister and advocate for peace and social justice
- Sara Flounders, author of "The Children Are Dying - The Impact of Sanctions on Iraq"
- Ray McGovern
- Niels Harrit

I was interested to see that Harrit finally went to New York (after admitting he was 'a little nervous' to visit the US after publication of his 'Active Thermitics' paper). He was accompanied by his wife, Danish actor/director (and peace activist) Pernille Grumme. I have not been able to find a text of his speech, but came across this interesting earlier writing by him: A Roadblock Or A Shortcut To Peace? N Harrit http://www.transnational.org/Resources_Media/2007/Harrit_Sept_11.html


Last edited by marc on Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:54 am; edited 3 times in total
Mon Oct 18, 2010 2:14 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Censorship and civility in the truth movement - Kevin Ryan
Also, an interesting comment on how Wikipedia has censored the 'Active Thermitics' paper.

http://911truthnews.com/up-a-crooked-creek-censorship-and-civility-in-the-truth-movement/#comment-309
Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:45 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Complaint to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation from Dr Frank Legge
"...ABC must agree that there is nothing to debate as, to my knowledge, it has never permitted a debate to be broadcast. My question is “What are you afraid of”? Surely, if there is no doubt about the official story, any debate would be a hands-down win for the status quo.'
http://911truthnews.com/complaint-to-the-australian-broadcasting-corporation-from-dr-frank-legge/


Last edited by marc on Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:42 am; edited 1 time in total
Sat Oct 30, 2010 8:42 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Cleall



Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 103

Post Post subject: Up a crooked creek: Censorship and civility in the truth mov Reply with quote

By Kevin Ryan

I’ve been censored many times. When I am completely honest with myself, however, I realize that some of those instances were not actually censorship but were forms of editorial discretion. Other instances were simply attempts by propagandists to downplay the truth.

Examples:

Editorial Discretion: When CommonDreams.org failed to respond to my article from 2003, it was making a decision that what I had to say was, for them, more of a nightmare than a shared dream. CommonDreams.org had published other articles that could be seen as related to 9/11 truth, but my approach was not to the editor’s liking. In response, I did not begin a public campaign against them but instead found many other sites to publish my articles.

Censorship: A leading alternative news site that regularly publishes 9/11 truth stories rejected one of my articles in late 2008, despite the fact that I had published there before. The editor responded very emotionally to the article, and suggested that it “attacked solid progressives.” The editor’s response was itself a great demonstration of what the article conveyed — that people have built-in mechanisms which keep them from seeing truth. In any case, I did not start a public campaign against the site and would never have thought of wasting my time and energies doing so. That’s because my goal is to reveal and communicate the truth.

Propaganda: When, in 2007, Wikipedia promoted highly dubious sources like “Mark Roberts” in an attempt to smear me, yet on the exact same subjects openly ignored sources like The New York Times and Underwriters Laboratories, that was not censorship, it was propaganda. But again, I did not start a campaign against Wikipedia nor did I try to strike back at the site despite the fact that it was intentionally working to defeat the truth.

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-30/crooked-creek-censorship-and-civility-truth-movement
Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:15 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Letter to BBC Reply with quote

Letter of complaint regarding a BBC Editors Blog entry by Mike Rudin, producer of the BBC's Conspiracy Files: 911 programme: The Truth About The Third Tower. No reply ever received.

The salient paragraph, perhaps:
There is no legal authority on 911. No evidence has ever been provided to prove the official theory correct beyond reasonable doubt. This means that neither the BBC nor its journalists, lacking full subpoena powers, are in a position to assert precisely which theory – official or alternative – is correct. An impartial journalist would give the official version, opposing theories and credible science papers their due weight in order to facilitate viewers forming their own opinion.

To: BBC Complaints Department
- 22 June 2009.

We wish to complain about Mike Rudin’s lack of impartiality and accuracy in his BBC Editors Blog entry, Caught Up in a Conspiracy Theory [1]

Rudin has engaged just once with the 3 300 comments posted at his blog. At 4:21pm on 22 May 2009, he wrote:

“There’ve been some really interesting comments and debate, but the substantial issues remain… The official investigators, NIST, have provided a detailed explanation of what happened.’

Rudin indicates that he has read the comments,which means he has seen the endlessly repeated references and links to:

(i) David Chandler’s work, disproving a key National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) calculation and demonstrating a period of freefall in WTC7, which NIST itself now finally admits. [2] Freefall - consistent with all resistance being instantaneously removed - is not consistent with NIST’s fire-led, gravitational collapse theory.

(ii) The recent peer-reviewed paper authored by Dr Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen and eight others: a forensic study supported by physical testing, which identifies high-tech nano-composite incendiary [3] residue in WTC dust [4].

Issues (i) and (ii) post-date the screening of Rudin’s “The Truth Behind The Third Tower” documentary and his last Blog entry. Rudin dismisses these important new disclosures by using “but” – a word expressing opposition - followed by the phrase “… the substantial issues remain”.

So what is one such “substantial” issue, that in Rudin’s opinion outweighs issues (i) and (ii) to the extent that he feels no need to acknowledge or cover them?

The “official investigators, NIST” and their “detailed explanation”, it turns out.

“Substantial” can mean “real, true, important, firmly constructed” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). In classifying the US Department of Commerce's official NIST explanation as “substantial”, Rudin infers it is “true” and “firmly constructed”.

Given that the Harrit paper passed through stringent peer-review according to its authors (who collectively have scores of previously-published, peer-reviewed science papers behind them) - the Harrit paper (absent a scientific rebuttal) could also be described as “true” or “firmly constructed”. Chandler - a trained physicist and upstanding member of the American Association of Physics Teachers - also produces work which is "firmly constructed".

Rudin’s assessment amounts to a one-sided value judgement, favouring NIST. Rudin is not neutral here.

The BBC needs to explain exactly why the work of Harrit and Chandler should be ignored and discounted - or the BBC risks charges of censoring their work.

There is no legal authority on 911. No evidence has ever been provided to prove the official theory correct beyond reasonable doubt.

This means that neither the BBC nor its journalists, lacking full subpoena powers, are in a position to assert precisely which theory – official or alternative – is correct.

An impartial journalist would give the official version, opposing theories and credible science papers their due weight, in order to facilitate viewers forming their own opinion.

This journalist does not afford each side of the ‘911’ discussion its due weight.

Rudin ignores significant new disclosures while implicitly upholding the official NIST report, even though:

- the NIST final report on WTC7 does not support itself with evidence;

- the NIST report has never been peer-reviewed;

- NIST has been forced to admit to a period of freefall in WTC7, essentially undermining its own conclusion;

- NIST’s ‘fire-led gravitational collapse’ conclusion has been called into doubt by some credible science professionals. [5]

- The new paper by Harrit et al raises disturbing questions about why NIST declined to test for thermite arson in defiance of standard US fire codes.

As series producer on the “911” subject and presumably the BBC’s expert on the subject, Rudin’s failure to update his material leaves the BBC’s reportage on ‘911’ in an incomplete, inaccurate and misleading state.

Rudin’s reply and work do not measure up against BBC’s own Editorial Guidelines, such as: “We must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects’ and “We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact, or knowingly do anything to mislead our audiences.”

Is it a journalist’s proper role to stand silent as significant new facts emerge? Have we missed something here?

We look forward to a reply.
Kind regards [ ]


Notes
[1] BBC Editors Blog: The Conspiracy Files: 911 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=7#comments

[2] David Chandler – NIST Finally Admits Freefall
http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov13.htm

[3] Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple – Jim Hoffman http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html

[4] Active Thermitic Material Discovered in WTC Dust After 911 Catastrophe, Harrit et al, Open Chemical Physics Journal (Bentham) . - http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/context.php?TOCPJ/2009/0000000200000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

[5] Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the WTC Destruction, Jones et al The Open Civil Engineering Journal (Bentham)
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM


Last edited by marc on Sun Nov 24, 2013 7:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
Fri Nov 12, 2010 9:05 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Limited hang-outs and damage control Reply with quote

edit

Last edited by marc on Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:04 pm; edited 7 times in total
Wed Nov 17, 2010 4:29 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

I was intrigued for a nano-second to see a headline this week at BBC Editors Blog:
Why we kept silent on the Chandler case
- followed by: "... the dilemmas we sometimes face when we know things we can't tell you."
Was the Beeb about to lift their years-long black-out on the work of NIST-Buster David Chandler?
No such luck. Super-injuction in the Somalia/Chandler case Confused
Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:02 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

New clip from Anthony Lawson
[maker of that seditious video: This Is an Orange.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x562gc_anthony-lawson-this-is-an-orange-vo_news ]

Lawson's new video looks more closely at an Australian journalist's attack on trades unionist president Kevin Bracken. Of interest:
- a photograph of that particular journalist shaking Mark Regev's hand;
- footage showing exactly what went on in parliament the day the Aus PM responded to a complaint from the benches about Kevin Bracken's comment.

High focus on Israel and low focus on the Australian-American relationship weakens analysis, but the footage and references are of undoubted interest.

Anthony Lawson: enemies inside the gates

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/11/friends-of-israel-enemies-inside-the-gates/

http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2010/11/anthony-lawson-friends-of-israel-%e2%80%94-enemies-inside-the-gates-video/#comments


Anthony Lawson: Aussie Trades Unionist Exposes 9/11 Cover-up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE3pMPObcGU&feature=related

Kevin Bracken refers to BBC's Jane Standley's crystal ball reporting on Building 7 (Soloman Bros Bldg). Standley reported it had come down 23 minutes before it actually did so - while it was still clearly visible behind her shoulder.

Perhaps there'd have been more media curiosity if a newsreader had announced:

The Lord Mayors's Trousers
Have Fallen Down To His Ankles


- 23 minutes before they actually did so?

BBC later put Standley's psychic powers down to a Reuters press feed. They declined to press Reuters on its sources, despite thousands of requests to do so on Richard Porter's and Mike Rudin's Editors Blogs.

As steel buildings have never suffered global implosion due to office fires before (this BBC footage shows how limited the fires were) who would presciently presume this building was about to defy physics? Is Kevin Bracken "obviously wrong and stupid" to question this narrative upon which wars are predicated?

BBC Reports WTC7 Demise 20 minutes before it comes down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNK1V6S2cbo&feature=related

BBC's Premature Announcement of WTC7 Collapse
http://www.wtc7.net/bbc.html

Dear BBC, [You] are under the impression that knocking down a couple of straw-men and proclaiming 'nothing to see here folks' is going make us all just forget the monumental 'cock up' ...
http://www.petitiononline.com/wtc7bbc/petition.html


Last edited by marc on Tue Nov 30, 2010 3:34 pm; edited 3 times in total
Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:24 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Wikileaks - US diplomats wanted propaganda war against Osama ahead of 9/11

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/US-diplomats-wanted-propaganda-war-against-Osama-ahead-of-9/11/articleshow/7009323.cms
Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:59 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Psychology of perception Reply with quote

An exploration of fact vs. fiction and how fear colors our perceptions.

The Asch experiments on conformity are mentioned by neuro-scientist Laurie Manwell in this recorded discussion with Graeme Mac Queen.
Laurie Manwell is a professor at Guelph University in Neuroscience and Applied Cognitive Sciences. Graeme MacQueen is founder of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University.

MacQueen and Manwell - "Peace Through Truth: State Crimes Against Democracy".
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-11-27/interchange-truth-about-911-graeme-macqueen-and-laurie-manwell
Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:18 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Your favourite authority figure is wrong

More on the important discussion (post above) between Prof Graeme MacQueen and Prof Laurie Manwell...

Graeme MacQ: "I would say the term conspiracy theorists has been an extremely powerful and useful term for those who want to prevent any questioning of what happened on September 11, 2001, and I think it doesn't survive scrutiny. I think its a thought stopper and a silencer."

He added that when you call someone a conspiracy theorist "everyone breathes a sigh of relief and says 'good, we don't have to look this, this is just a conspiracy theory, we don't have to look for evidence, we don't have to use our critical faculties' and it operates that way, it prevents people from thinking. . .If I wanted to denigrate you I can say you're an idiot, but calling you a conspiracy theorist is much more effective because it's a sophisticated term."

MacQueen is doing tremendous work along with Laurie Manwell, a professor at Guelph University in Neuroscience and Applied Cognitive Sciences, in educating public about the scientific evidence that rules out the official 9/11 story and explaining the psychological and political ramifications that arise when first realizing this haunting truth.

In September they gave a presentation called "Peace Through Truth; 9/11 and State Crimes Against Democracy" in Bloomington, Indiana. The event received little media coverage...

Quote:
Professor Manwell is a pioneer in the emerging field of 9/11 studies. Her paper "In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11," was published in the American Behavioral Scientist in February 2010.

There is interesting analysis throughout her paper but here I will post an excerpt from her conclusion. She quotes the great journalist and broadcaster Edward R. Murrow, and then offers her own equally apt words:

"In the same year that William Golding proffered his warning about the importance of dissent in a climate of fear, another great spokesman, Edward R. Murrow, also reminded us of the necessity of dissent to fulfill our responsibility of defending democracy from rampant fear:

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men--not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.

"We scholars can and must take seriously the citizen's call to action and not allow fear to override the demand for interpersonal tolerance of different political views.

We can and must create dissonance in the public psyche to encourage social responsibility and education on matters of national interest.

We can and must investigate the current state of affairs for ourselves and not delegate accountability to elected officials who may harbor alternative agendas.

We can and must remember that trading freedom for security divests our contemporary and all future collective power to participate in democratic governance.

We can and must believe that change is possible when we choose to be a part of it.

We can and must dissent in the face of everyday denials of democracy.


Thanks to the insight of courageous scholars and professors like Laurie Manwell, Graeme MacQueen, David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones, Niels Harrit, and many others, we have a better chance at winning back the freedoms that we've lost in our Western democracies because of the 9/11 attacks. They are helping citizens to think critically and compassionately about the 9/11 crime, filling a role that journalists have avoided because they have not bothered to think.

"The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking," said the Canadian-American economist John Kenneth Galbraith. Thinking is the least, but also the hardest, thing that we can all do as citizens. In times like ours thinking is forbidden because it is dangerous to the establishment, which is probably the biggest reason why thinking is so necessary. New thinking bears new fruits.

By rethinking the 9/11 attacks we can help end the wars in the Middle East, and save our Western democracies at the same time. It is a win-win situation. But change is not automatic. We are all engaged in a historical struggle for freedom, truth, and justice. We are all in this together. We must continue to raise our voices, and puncture the bubble of fear, cowardice, and complacency.

It is also important that we tell the message that a better world is possible once we accept the truth about 9/11 and bring the real criminals behind the attacks to justice.

The people who were telling the truth all along were treated poorly, and perceived as lunatics. Like medieval lepers, the individuals who raised the banner of 9/11 truth were insulted, and excluded from public dialogue, and the respectable boundaries of communal conversation that exists in every human society.

What is strange about people's mental blindness towards the truth is that you don't have to be smart to connect the dots and see that high-level U.S. government officials were behind 9/11; to see that 2+2 equals 4. It doesn't require any special mental skill to judge lies as lies.

Perhaps the most difficult truth to swallow is that the lie about 9/11 fooled people, including experienced scientists and highly gifted intellectuals, not because of media brainwashing, government manipulation of the public, or a lack of access to information, but because of human conceit and an unwillingness on the part of many individuals to take a look at the evidence...

[They were also put off by the nonsense advocates who - deliberately or not - thoroughly poisoned the well with Illuminati/UFO/Lizard/anti-semitic/off-topic talk]

...
Most people chose to conform to the popular opinion that the 9/11 attacks were done by Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, as the government had told them...

http://www.opednews.com/Diary/Your-Favorite-Authority-Fi-by-Saman-Mohammadi-101205-548.html


Last edited by marc on Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:53 am; edited 1 time in total
Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:28 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
    printer friendly
eXTReMe Tracker