Why do our Journalists Ignore This one?
You would think most people in the 'news business' would be falling all over themselves to get any snippet of a remark from a Washington 'insider' who has something to say which is totally devastating to the persons and Party in power - especially if True - which is very likely. That does not seem to be the case regarding the unprecedented statements of Morgan Reynolds who was the former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term.
As this article from Signs of the Times by Kurt Nimmo puts it:
Morgan Reynolds' Nine Eleven Inside Job: Corporate Media Silence is Golden
Kurt Nimmo
Tuesday June 14th 2005, 6:55 pm
Are you surprised? The Morgan Reynolds story about nine eleven being an "inside job" has received nada coverage beyond the original UPI story—that is to say nada coverage in the corporate media (it was covered immediately by Conspiracy Planet and Collective Bellaciao and I'm sure other alternative news sites). Google news search results are pathetic. You'd think this would be a HUGE story—a former Bushite declaring it is distinctly possible America was attacked by its own government—but instead we get the following (posted on the KLAS TV site):
The Michael Jackson verdict is was the lead story across the world. The Jackson trial was found not just on tabloids but also more high-minded newspapers.
Since the story broke yesterday, the Jackson melodrama has returned 1,784 results on the Google News search engine.
Meanwhile, real news—news of national and international significance—is scoffed at by corporate toadies, for instance Los Angeles Times editorial page editor Michael Kinsley. "Developing a paranoid theory and promoting it to the very edge of national respectability takes ideological self-confidence," Kinsley declared sarcastically about the Downing Street Memo story two days ago. Meanwhile, Michael Getler of the Washington Post deemed people concerned about Bush and crew planning an invasion, mass murder, and occupation without good reason "wing nuts" out on the edge of respectable opinion.
"What can reading USA Today tell us about the Downing Street Memo (DSM) story? Zip. Zilch. Nothing. At least that was the case for the first 38 days after the memo was published in London's Sunday Times. USA Today published not a word about it until June 8, 2005," writes Cynthia Bogard. "The Bush Administration successfully stymied almost all mainstream coverage of the issue until Reuter reporter Steve Holland's brave question at the joint Bush-Blair news conference on June 7. They had a lot of help from the White House press corps which, despite 19 daily briefings, asked Bush spokesperson Scott McClellan exactly two questions about the memo between May 1 and USA Today's first mention of it on June 8."
"USA Today chose not to publish anything about the memo before today for several reasons, says Jim Cox, the newspaper's senior assignment editor for foreign news. 'We could not obtain the memo or a copy of it from a reliable source,' Cox says. 'There was no explicit confirmation of its authenticity from (Blair's office). And it was disclosed four days before the British elections, raising concerns about the timing,'" writes Editor & Publisher.
Does Cox think Bush's poodle was going to hand deliver the memo to his office and also provide "confirmation of its authenticity"? And the fact British elections coincided with the release of the memo is completely irrelevant. Cox was, of course, fishing for excuses. The DSM is nothing less than an embarrassment for the corporate media because it so slavishly (and transparently) served as Bush's propaganda organ for perpetuating war crimes, telling us straight-faced such absurdities as Osama and Saddam were buddies, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the people who destroyed Iraq's weapons said otherwise, Saddam shopped around for yellowcake, model airplanes were deadly drones, Atta met with an Iraqi secret agenda in Prague, and other whoppers, all lies and dissembling chatter.
"If there's one thing left wingers love, it's a good, old-fashioned conspiracy. Give them a small nibble of a 'claim' of wrong doing against the current White House, conservatives, or Republicans, and the left wing fringe will pounce into action. Facts? Data? Evidence? Those items are simply minor inconveniences to their 'analysis' of right wing efforts to rule the world, steal elections, plant White House reporters, or a host of other perceived dirty deeds," scribbles Bobby Eberle for GOPUSA.
Claim my foot. Anybody with two brain cells to rub together understands Bush and crew lied, fabricated "intelligence," and planned the "war" against Iraq years ago. But since it wasn't covered by the "liberal" New York Times and the one-time (still-time no doubt) CIA asset (Operation Mockingbird) the Washington Post it is little more than an "old-fashioned conspiracy" by the "left wing fringe." Facts ain't facts unless they appear in the corporate media. I once had a former New York Times stringer tell me as much.
Naturally, the Morgan Reynolds story will go nowhere because the corporate media will ignore it. Down here in the nether regions of the "left wing fringe," the story will simply be more evidence that the Bush explanation for nine eleven is hogwash and it will add fuel to the speculation that the attacks were an inside job. Morgan Reynolds' story is so damaging that the corporate media will ignore it—crossing its fingers and hoping it will die—and shills like Michael Kinsley and Michael Getler will not even make sarcastic jokes about it like they did with the DSM story. For the corporate media, silence is golden.
For the rest of us, it is another arrow in our quiver.
>
As this article from Signs of the Times by Kurt Nimmo puts it:
Morgan Reynolds' Nine Eleven Inside Job: Corporate Media Silence is Golden
Kurt Nimmo
Tuesday June 14th 2005, 6:55 pm
Are you surprised? The Morgan Reynolds story about nine eleven being an "inside job" has received nada coverage beyond the original UPI story—that is to say nada coverage in the corporate media (it was covered immediately by Conspiracy Planet and Collective Bellaciao and I'm sure other alternative news sites). Google news search results are pathetic. You'd think this would be a HUGE story—a former Bushite declaring it is distinctly possible America was attacked by its own government—but instead we get the following (posted on the KLAS TV site):
The Michael Jackson verdict is was the lead story across the world. The Jackson trial was found not just on tabloids but also more high-minded newspapers.
Since the story broke yesterday, the Jackson melodrama has returned 1,784 results on the Google News search engine.
Meanwhile, real news—news of national and international significance—is scoffed at by corporate toadies, for instance Los Angeles Times editorial page editor Michael Kinsley. "Developing a paranoid theory and promoting it to the very edge of national respectability takes ideological self-confidence," Kinsley declared sarcastically about the Downing Street Memo story two days ago. Meanwhile, Michael Getler of the Washington Post deemed people concerned about Bush and crew planning an invasion, mass murder, and occupation without good reason "wing nuts" out on the edge of respectable opinion.
"What can reading USA Today tell us about the Downing Street Memo (DSM) story? Zip. Zilch. Nothing. At least that was the case for the first 38 days after the memo was published in London's Sunday Times. USA Today published not a word about it until June 8, 2005," writes Cynthia Bogard. "The Bush Administration successfully stymied almost all mainstream coverage of the issue until Reuter reporter Steve Holland's brave question at the joint Bush-Blair news conference on June 7. They had a lot of help from the White House press corps which, despite 19 daily briefings, asked Bush spokesperson Scott McClellan exactly two questions about the memo between May 1 and USA Today's first mention of it on June 8."
"USA Today chose not to publish anything about the memo before today for several reasons, says Jim Cox, the newspaper's senior assignment editor for foreign news. 'We could not obtain the memo or a copy of it from a reliable source,' Cox says. 'There was no explicit confirmation of its authenticity from (Blair's office). And it was disclosed four days before the British elections, raising concerns about the timing,'" writes Editor & Publisher.
Does Cox think Bush's poodle was going to hand deliver the memo to his office and also provide "confirmation of its authenticity"? And the fact British elections coincided with the release of the memo is completely irrelevant. Cox was, of course, fishing for excuses. The DSM is nothing less than an embarrassment for the corporate media because it so slavishly (and transparently) served as Bush's propaganda organ for perpetuating war crimes, telling us straight-faced such absurdities as Osama and Saddam were buddies, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the people who destroyed Iraq's weapons said otherwise, Saddam shopped around for yellowcake, model airplanes were deadly drones, Atta met with an Iraqi secret agenda in Prague, and other whoppers, all lies and dissembling chatter.
"If there's one thing left wingers love, it's a good, old-fashioned conspiracy. Give them a small nibble of a 'claim' of wrong doing against the current White House, conservatives, or Republicans, and the left wing fringe will pounce into action. Facts? Data? Evidence? Those items are simply minor inconveniences to their 'analysis' of right wing efforts to rule the world, steal elections, plant White House reporters, or a host of other perceived dirty deeds," scribbles Bobby Eberle for GOPUSA.
Claim my foot. Anybody with two brain cells to rub together understands Bush and crew lied, fabricated "intelligence," and planned the "war" against Iraq years ago. But since it wasn't covered by the "liberal" New York Times and the one-time (still-time no doubt) CIA asset (Operation Mockingbird) the Washington Post it is little more than an "old-fashioned conspiracy" by the "left wing fringe." Facts ain't facts unless they appear in the corporate media. I once had a former New York Times stringer tell me as much.
Naturally, the Morgan Reynolds story will go nowhere because the corporate media will ignore it. Down here in the nether regions of the "left wing fringe," the story will simply be more evidence that the Bush explanation for nine eleven is hogwash and it will add fuel to the speculation that the attacks were an inside job. Morgan Reynolds' story is so damaging that the corporate media will ignore it—crossing its fingers and hoping it will die—and shills like Michael Kinsley and Michael Getler will not even make sarcastic jokes about it like they did with the DSM story. For the corporate media, silence is golden.
For the rest of us, it is another arrow in our quiver.
>
posted by Hairaiser @ 8:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home