Transcript Dial 911 for Evidence - University of Maryland, College Park

Dial 911 for Evidence
What did or didn’t happen,
and (how) can we know?
1
What about you?
• What do you think happened before,
on, and after September 11, 2001
• Where did you get the information
that led you to think that?
2
Thinking about theories
3
What is a myth?
(David Ray Griffin)
• A narrative that is
– Widely believed
– Does not correspond to reality
4
What is a Myth?
(David Ray Griffin)
• A narrative that
– orients & mobilizes people:
• “Who am I?”
• “Why do I do what I do?”
– is taken on faith
– is not subject to discussion
5
What is a theory?
A hypothesis assumed for the
sake of argument or investigation
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory)
6
A good theory . . .
•
•
•
•
•
Does not contain internal contradictions
Corresponds to observed data
Is not inconsistent with observed data
Does not ignore observed data
May predict not-yet-known data
7
3 ways to challenge a theory
(David Ray Griffin, Ultimate 9/11 Showdown)
1. Show that the evidence supporting it does
not withstand scrutiny
2. Show evidence that appears to contradict it
3. Show evidence that it can’t possibly be true
8
What is a “conspiracy?”
• Cabal -- an association between religious, political, or
tribal officials to further their own ends, usually by
intrigue
• Conspiracy (civil) (US) -- an agreement between
persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their
legal rights, or to gain an unfair advantage
• Conspiracy (crime) (US) -- an agreement between
persons to break the law in the future, in some cases
having committed an act to further that agreement
• Conspiracy (political) -- a plot to overthrow a
government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy
9
Problem with
“Conspiracy Theory”
• Used to patronizingly explain away
evidence as “America’s traditional loveaffair with conspiracy theories.”
• Has come to be an instantaneous turn-off
of people’s analytical willingness or
abilities.
• 9/11 -- used in a one-sided perjorative
sense, when in fact there are two
competing conspiracy theories
10
9/11: Conspiracy theory #1
The Official Story
With no prior warning, Arab Muslim
fundamentalists hijacked airliners,
evaded a massive interception
capability, and flew them into (a) two
skyscrapers that collapsed in an
unprecedented fashion, and (b) the
most heavily constructed and least
strategic part of the Pentagon.
11
9/11: Conspiracy theory #2
The “9/11 ‘Truth’ Movement”
•
• The Official Story is false because it is contains
many contradictions, as well as inconsistencies
with physical and forensic evidence.
• The official defenses of the Official Story contain
so many omissions, distortions, and apparently
deliberate lies that they constitute a coverup of
whatever did happen.
• Although much evidence for an alternative story
is available, many aspects are inconsistent or
lacking positive proof, and the real story cannot
be known until there is a new, truly independent
investigation with subpoena powers.
12
9/11: Conspiracy theory #2
The “9/11 ‘Truth’ Movement”
WHAT? NO THEORY????
• See item 3 on previous slide
• QUESTION: Is it necessary, in proving that a
theory is wrong, to
– Offer a fully-fledged, or even partial, alternative
theory?
– Account for all the implications of evidence
brought forward?
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/implications.html
Ripple Effect, ch. 17: http://thepowerhour.com/news2/analogy.htm
13
9/11: Conspiracy theory #2
The “9/11 ‘Truth’ Movement”
To the extent that there is a theory:
• Arab individuals may or may not have hijacked
jetliners
• World Trade Center 1, 2 & 7 were destroyed by
something other than fire
• The Pentagon was damaged, but by what?
• Something crashed or was shot down in
Pennsylvania
• Some elements of the U.S. government were
involved to one of the following degrees . . .
14
Degrees of “Official Complicity”
(David Ray Griffin, in The New Pearl Harbor)
• Construction of false account
• No knowledge on part of White House, but...
–
–
–
–
Expected by intelligence agencies (in general)
Expected by intelligence agencies (specifics)
Intelligence agencies involved in planning
Pentagon involved in planning
• White House involved
– No specific knowledge, general expectation
– Specific advance knowledge
– Involved in planning
15
What is “impossible?”
(David Ray Griffin, Ultimate 9/11 Showdown)
• Logical -- a round square
• Metaphysical -- going back in time
and killing your grandfather
• Physical -- violation of physical laws
16
Was U.S. involvement
impossible?
A history of real, provoked, or
fictional attacks on Americans
or allies as pretexts for wars...
later
17
The link between
Theory and Evidence
18
Types of Reasoning
David Ray Griffin
• Deductive (defending official story):
Step by step -- each depends on
previous, if one is false, all fails
• Cumulative (questioning official story):
Series of independent observations -if one fails, weakens argument but
doesn’t kill it
19
Thinking about evidence
20
Types of evidence
• Physical
– Objects
– Observations of phenomena
– Analysis of objects or phenomena
• Behavior
– Actions
– Consistency
21
Evidence relates to
• Events
• Relationships
– Events to events
– People to events
– People to People
22
Evidence sources
1. Primary
–
–
–
–
–
Primary documents (government, private)
Video/audio (news footage, individuals)
Statements by directly involved individuals
Eye-witness statements
Empirical physical research
2. Secondary (report on Primaries)
– News analysis articles/broadcasts
– Investigative researchers
3. Tertiary (assemble Secondaries)
– Books and produced videos
– Blogs
23
Evidence/testimony credibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Correspondence to physical reality
Changes in story
Inherent predisposition
Nature of expert
Reputation of source
Technical issues
Quotation issues
Contradicting evidence
Misleading
What else??
24
Evidence/testimony credibility
Relation to physical reality
• Claim (based in NIST report evidence):
The WTC towers collapsed because of
truss failures, lower floors crushed by
structure above falling on them.
• Observation: If this were true, then at least
the top portions of the buildings would be
in recognizable pieces.
• Physical reality: all three buildings were
turned into small-particle dust.
25
Evidence/testimony credibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Correspondence to physical reality
Changes in story
Inherent predisposition
Nature of expert
Reputation of source
Technical issues
Quotation issues
Contradicting evidence
Misleading
What else??
26
Evidence/testimony credibility
Story changes
• Where were you the night of the crime?
– I was at the theater.
• The theater was closed.
– Oh, that’s right, I was with my girlfriend.
• She says she was with her husband.
– Oh, yeah, I was home reading the Bible.
-- from David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Myth and Reality
27
Official story changes
to handle objections
• (9/11-12/01) Joint Chiefs head & NORAD
spokesman: Didn’t get interceptors into air
until after Pentagon hit (sounds like stand
down? 9/14: CBS says fighters were up)
• (9/18/01) NORAD timeline: up, but too late
due to FAA failure to provide timely
notification (hmm -- there still was time)
• (7/04) 9/11 Commission -- FAA never
notified military of any of the planes, except
a phantom Flight 11 (which had never been
previously mentioned)
28
Evidence/testimony credibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Correspondence to physical reality
Changes in story
Inherent predisposition
Nature of expert
Reputation of source
Technical issues
Quotation issues
Contradicting evidence
Misleading
What else??
29
Evidence/testimony credibility
Inherent predisposition
• A person is known, through prior
statements or association, to have a certain
predisposition.
• Two possibilities: s/he claims to have
witnessed -- or discovered -- something
– that is congruent with that predisposition
– that contradicts that predisposition
• Which of these is likely to be more reliable?
30
Pentagon reporters
David Ray Griffin, Ultimate 9/11 ‘Truth’ Showdown
• Of 7 who say they saw a jetliner hit the
Pentagon
– 5 worked for Gannet (USA Today)
– one described wing dragging the ground (but
no scar)
• Those who arrived immediately after:
– CNN: “very small pieces you can pick up with
your hand, nothing large”
– ABC (early close look inside): “could not see
any plane wreckage”
31
Pentagon police
Flight 77: Flight Data Recorder Investigation Files (DVD)
• Filling their cars at “the Citgo station”
• They say (on camera, in uniform) that they
saw the plane go by north of the station
• The alleged flight data recorder (and
apparent damage path) says it went south
of the station.
• Real, or a byzantine straw-man plot to
discredit the 9T movement? (Hmm, this
begins to get strange)
32
Evidence/testimony credibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Correspondence to physical reality
Changes in story
Inherent predisposition
Nature of expert
Reputation of source
Technical issues
Quotation issues
Contradicting evidence
Misleading
What else??
33
Evidence/testimony credibility
Nature of expert
• Professional qualifications
• Relevance of these to
evidence/testimony
• Free from potential conflict of
interest or duress?
34
Evidence/testimony credibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Correspondence to physical reality
Changes in story
Inherent predisposition
Nature of expert
Reputation of source
Technical issues
Quotation issues
Contradicting evidence
Misleading
What else??
35
Evidence/testimony credibility
Reputation of source
• How do others in his/her field feel about
him/her?
• Has other information provided by him/her
been successfully debunked (when seen
in context)?
• Approach: “hot” or “cool”
• (Trickier) Is there baggage that you feel
damages credibility for you? (e.g., UFOs,
anti-Zionist)
36
Evidence/testimony credibility
Reputation of source
Example: David Ray Griffin
• Well respected as theologian, many
books, dean of the “9/11 Truth” movement
• Researcher who gathers together others’
research, does some checking w/primary
• Possible debunks
– 757 didn’t hit Pentagon
– Hijackers not there and/or still alive
– “FAA” doc on intercept timing is not FAA.
• Baggage: concern for Constitution/world
37
Evidence/testimony credibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Correspondence to physical reality
Changes in story
Inherent predisposition
Nature of expert
Reputation of source
Technical issues
Quotation issues
Contradicting evidence
Misleading
What else??
38
Evidence/testimony credibility
Technical issues
• Is there evidence or suspicion of photo or
video or audio alteration or faking that
can’t be discounted?
• Is technical evidence invoked that sounds
impressive but is flawed or contradicted
by observation?
• Do more persuasive technical
counterarguments exist?
39
Evidence/testimony credibility
Technical issues
Alternative: http://journalof911studies.com/
Debunking: http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html
• Fake? 911Comm: found DoD audio file
about Flight 11 heading to DC, no source,
no dating, not available.
• Fake? 911 cell phone calls that were
impossible to make.
• WTC gravity-energy argument:
–
–
–
–
–
–
No: http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html
Yes: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
Yes: http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf
No: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
Yes: http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_2_Greening.pdf
No: http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_3_RossReply.pdf
40
Evidence/testimony credibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Correspondence to physical reality
Changes in story
Inherent predisposition
Nature of expert
Reputation of source
Technical issues
Quotation issues
Contradicting evidence
Misleading
What else??
41
Evidence/testimony credibility
Quotation issues
• Is the attribution provided, correct and
findable (lots of web pages gone; why)?
• What is the context?
• What is contained in...the portion omitted
by use of ellipses?
42
Evidence/testimony credibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Correspondence to physical reality
Changes in story
Inherent predisposition
Nature of expert
Reputation of source
Technical issues
Quotation issues
Contradicting evidence
Misleading
What else??
43
Evidence/testimony credibility
Contradicting evidence
• Molten steel in the WTC foundations
– http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501
• Some hijackers still alive
– Yes: Griffin, 911Commission Omissions & Distortions, p.19
– No: http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/05/david-ray-griffin-115-things-he-gets.html
• Barbara Olson phone call from Flight 77
– Yes: proves hijackers had box cutters, 77 in air at that time
– No: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514
44
Evidence/testimony credibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Correspondence to physical reality
Changes in story
Inherent predisposition
Nature of expert
Reputation of source
Technical issues
Quotation issues
Contradicting evidence
Misleading
What else??
45
Evidence/testimony credibility
Misleading
• Deliberate
– Using in wrong context
– Omitting important information
– Distorting reality
• Accidental
– Quoting evidence cited by someone else
46
Evidence/testimony credibility
Misleading -- AT’ers
• Hijackers on planes?
– CNN passenger lists with no hijackers’ names
cited as indication of absence
– But CNN article popup window stated the
hijackers were expressly omitted
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/index.html
• Potential rapidity of response
– 1998 FAA document cited saying jets would be
on tail of oddity in “10 or so minutes”
– Document actually was a manual for air traffic
control training software, with disclaimer.
http://www.xavius.com/080198.htm
47
Evidence/testimony credibility
Misleading -- OS’ers
• The 9/11 Commission Report’s complete
omission or distortion of testimony that
conflicted with their assertions (e.g., Norman
Mineta, Sibel Edmonds, much more).
• The assertion that the sulfur on WTC steel
came from gypsum wallboard instead of the
pyrotechnic thermate, ignoring the
vaporization and melting of the steel in the
sulfated area.
48
Evidence/testimony credibility
Disingenuous Debunking
• Use “conspiracy” as one-sided perjorative
• Straw man -- pick an outlying or irrelevant
position and claim/imply this is the meat of the
argument.
• Distort positions
• Ignore inconvenient evidence
• Cite potentially compromised sources
• Guilt by association (unpopular ideas)
• Lie
• Combine all the above for confusion
49
Evidence/testimony credibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Correspondence to physical reality
Changes in story
Inherent predisposition
Nature of expert
Reputation of source
Technical issues
Quotation issues
Contradicting evidence
Misleading
What else??
50
Evidence Aversion:
A priori assumptions,
Avoidance of empirical evidence
• Paradigmatic thinking -- limitation by
worldview
• Wishful thinking -- predisposition to
ideas that retain comfort
– Fearful thinking (corollary) -predisposition to ideas that avoid
discomfort
51
A priori thinking: examples
• Incompetence much more likely
• Someone would have talked
• It’s obvious that al Qaeda did it
52
Fact of Life
People look at the same piece of
evidence and draw totally
different conclusions
The Soviet sub and the Queen
53
What you see...
“I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75
Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police
Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency
Management, and we were operating out of there when we were
told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it
did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so
we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally
found an exit and got out....”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KtDIOS8-EM
How did Rudy Giuliani’s people know?
OS-ers: he wouldn’t be stupid enough to say something
incriminating
9T-ers: most wouldn’t notice, only those who know the lack of
precedent for steel frame buildings collapsing from fire
54
What you see...
Dust -- from air push or explosions?
North Tower
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#northtower
South Tower
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#southtower
55
LIES!!!
• Knowingly stating something that is false
– Vice President Cheney comes to mind on
many fronts.
• Lots of accusation from both sides
• Hard to prove, but not always impossible.
• Be wary (but open) when you see it
56
Basic Information
•
•
•
•
•
Flight destinations
Civilian agencies
Military/Intelligence agencies
Private organizations
Official reports
57
Flight Destinations
•
•
•
•
•
American Airlines 11: North Tower 1
United Airlines 175: South Tower 2
None: WTC Building 7
American Airlines 77: Pentagon
United Airlines 93: ? (Pennsylvania)
58
Civilian Agencies
• EPA: Environmental Protection Agency (DC)
• FAA: Federal Aviation Administration (DC)
– Boston Air Traffic Control Center (Boston)
– Herndon Command Center (Herndon VA: suburban DC)
– Headquarters (DC)
• FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency (DC)
• NIST: National Institute of Standards & Technology
(Bethesda, MD: suburban DC)
• NTSB: National Transportation Safety Board (DC)
• OEM: Office of Emergency Management (NY City)
59
Military/Intelligence Agencies
• CIA (Langley, Virginia: suburban DC)
• FBI (DC)
• NORAD: North American Aerospace Defense
Command (Colorado Springs, CO)
– NEADS: Northeast Air Defense Sector (Rome, NY)
• NMCC: National Military Command Center
(Pentagon)
• NSA: National Security Agency (Fort Meade, MD:
suburban DC)
60
Private Organizations
• ASCE: American Society of Civil Engineers
(volunteers assigned by FEMA to study the damage
at the World Trade Center and Pentagon)
• PNAC: Project for the New American Century
(Neoconservative think tank, applied Brzyzinski’s
concept of a “new Pearl Harbor” to the need to
speed up the transformation of the military to
facilitate American hegemony.)
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces,
and Resources For a New Century
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
61
Official Reports
• 5/02 -- FEMA (ASCE vols): World Trade Center
Building Performance Study
• 1/03 -- FEMA (ASCE vols): Pentagon Building
Performance Report
• 12/03 -- Congress: Report of Joint Inquiry into
Intelligence Community Activities
• 8/04 -- 9/11 Commission: Report of the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United
States)
• 9/05 -- NIST: World Trade Center 1 & 2
• 8&12/07 -- NIST: World Trade Center 7
62
High-quality Web Sites
• The questioners
• The debunkers
(attacking the questioners)
• The timeline
63
High-quality web sites:
Questioning Official Story
• 9/11 Research -- exhaustive critical careful evidence
http://911research.wtc7.net/
• Journal of 9/11 Studies -- peer reviewed papers
http://journalof911studies.com/
• Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice -- research papers and
archival documents
http://stj911.org/
(not to be confused with http://911scholars.org/ )
• Study of 9/11 -- papers pro and con on doubt & debunk
http://www.studyof911.com/
• Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth -- excellent video
slide show on WTC
http://www.ae911truth.net/
64
High-quality web sites:
Supporting Official Story
or “debunking” questioners
• 9/11 Myths -- good detail
http://www.911myths.com/
• Debunking 9/11 Conspiracies & Demolition
http://www.debunking911.com/
• The Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracies
http://www.jod911.com/
• AE911 Truth.INFO -- against A&E, not much info
http://www.ae911truth.info/
65
High-quality web sites:
Reference: can be used by either side
Paul Thompson’s Timeline
Online:
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=c
omplete_911_timeline
Book (Terror Timeline):
http://www.amazon.com/Terror-Timeline-ComprehensiveChronicle11/dp/0060783389/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=12
32634008&sr=8-1
66
Was U.S. involvement
impossible?
A history of real, provoked, or
fictional attacks on Americans
or allies as pretexts for wars...
67
History: false flags and
provocation setups
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mexican American war: setup
Spanish-American war: false flag?
Pearl Harbor: another setup
Cuba: false flags
Vietnam: twist on false-flag
Gulf War: double deception
68
Mexican-American War
a setup
•
•
•
•
Disagreement about border of Texas
U.S. wanted northern half of Mexico up to Oregon
Mexico refused
President Polk sent troops into territory Mexico
had never ceded
• Mexico attacked, shedding of American blood
used as pretext for war
• History: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War
Lincoln: http://medicolegal.tripod.com/lincolnvmexwar.htm
69
Spanish-American War
false-flag?
• Spain economically/militarily weak
• American support for Cuban independence
(with subsequent double-cross)
• U.S.S. Maine sent in response to riots
• Exploded in Havana harbor when something set
off the magazines: coal fire or a mine -- still
disagreement over which and why and who
• Conveniently used as pretext for wide war
•
History: http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/navalbattles1800s/p/ussmaine.htm
70
Pearl Harbor
another setup
• U.S. administration well-documented as wanting to
enter World War II, but opposed by 88% of Americans
• Sought means of provoking Japan -- e.g. freezing of
Japanese assets to deny oil
• FDR sent fleet to exposed Pearl Harbor, then
misinformed them about negotiations
• Intelligence about Japanese pre-attack spying was
not passed on, Congressional inquiries blocked.
• The attack produced a massive turnaround in opinion.
•
History: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html
Why little-known: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north26.html
71
Cuba/Operation Northwoods
false flag proposal
• Strong support in JFK administration (except JFK) for
regime change in Cuba
• Bay of Pigs: attempt using surrogates fails
• Needed a pretext for actual invasion
• Operation Northwoods: Joint Chiefs of Staff proposal
suggesting numerous false-flag pretexts
– about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
– documents: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
– video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IygchZRJVXM
72
Vietnam
twist on false flag
• Gulf of Tonkin attack (or rather the key 2nd
attack), used as the pretext for full-scale
war, didn’t take place
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident - First_attack
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.htm
73
Gulf War
double deception
• Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie tells
Saddam Hussein the U.S. won’t get
involved in Arab/Arab (Kuwait) conflicts (8
days before invasion)
http://arabic-radio-tv.com/greenlight.htm
• “Nurse” Nayirah and the incubator babies
– description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah
– video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9qE9zEu78o
74
Credibility
A USA today poll found that 24% of Americans
trust the media and only 6% trust the government
to tell them the truth. Why is it then that when in
idea that is contrary to the "official story" is
presented, it is met with ridicule and
condemnation?
-- Dave vonKleist (producer of 911 Ripple Effect)
75
The Fourth Estate
•
•
•
•
Conspiracy?
Self-censorship?
Corporate censorship?
Failure to connect the dots?
76
Self-censorship?
"Anyone who claims the US media didn't censor
itself is kidding you. It wasn't a matter of
government pressure but a reluctance to criticise
anything in a war that was obviously supported by
the vast majority of the people. And this isn't just a
CNN issue -- every journalist who was in any way
involved in 9/11 is partly responsible.”
-- Rena Golden, 8/02 (CNN International Exec. VP/General Mgr)
77
Self-Censorship?
“... you know there was a time in South Africa 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...What we are talking about
here -- whether one wants to recognise it or not, or call
it by its proper name or not -- is a form of selfcensorship...”
-- Dan Rather, CBS News (BBC interview, May, 2002)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7oxH95dy5g (~3 min)
78
Self-Censorship?
“... It starts with a feeling of patriotism within oneself. It
carries through with a certain knowledge that the
country as a whole -- and for all the right reasons -- felt
and continues to feel this surge of patriotism within
themselves. And one finds oneself saying: 'I know the
right question, but you know what? This is not exactly
the right time to ask it'... And again, I am humbled to
say, I do not except myself from this criticism.”
-- Dan Rather, CBS News (BBC interview, May, 2002)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7oxH95dy5g (~6 min)
79
Corporate Censorship?
“I think news reporting has drastically changed
since 9/11... The reporting now, there is always use
of caution in how we cover a story.... We are every
day kicking and screaming in the news room,
trying to get stories out. But we could do a story
and it might not make air. You have someone from
the corporation making the editorial decisions.
These are not journalists.”
-- Rebecca Abrams, Assignment editor, ABC News (in Press for Truth)
80
Corporate Censorship?
“Fahrenheit 911, which is based a lot on our reports at
BBC Television on my book -- ABC News has free
access to everything we do at BBC television. We say,
"Go ahead, run it. You don't like the way Michael
Moore does it -- you think it's too polemical, or
biased? Fine. Run the hard news, buddy!"
-- Greg Palast, BBC correspondent and investigative reporter (in Press for Truth)
81
Connecting the dots?
“[Putting the conflicting information up side by
side and comparing is] not the job of reporting.
That's the job of editorial pages and politicians
and others, to make those kinds of judgments.
And the public itself -- the 9/11 relatives
themselves, to make those kinds of assertions.
All we can do in our reporting is report facts, and
we have reported those facts, and we have held
those facts up against public statements at the
time. Which is why they know that's what took
place -- from our reporting.”
-- Len Downie, Exec. Editor, Washington Post (in Press for Truth)
82
Connecting the dots
“It would be impossible as a citizen to be up and
informed on every single topic, because it took
us thousands of hours of research in order to be
informed enough to ask the right questions here.
And that's where you need media, because, you
know what? Somebody has to be out there
connecting the dots, and we don't have that.”
-- Mindy Kleinberg, Jersey Girls (in Press for Truth)
83
Connecting the dots
“As I began researching, I noticed this curious
phenomenon that there's a lot of explosive
information that HAS come out in the mainstream
media, but as a casual observer I'd never noticed
any of this stuff. You might find one important bit
of information in, say a newspaper story, and
another bit of information on a news show. And if
you start to put all those rather obscure stories
together, you end up with an almost completely
different narrative for just about any area relating
to 9/11...”
-- Paul Thompson (in Press for Truth)
84
Connecting the dots
“...The story is quite different if you dig deeper
into the news. You could have one story that
comes out on the front page, and another story
that comes out on page B-12. And what I found
out was that many times, the story that comes
out on page B-12 is more important than the
story that comes out on the front page.”
-- Paul Thompson (in Press for Truth)
85