Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
GE's Silencing of Olbermann and MSNBC's Sleazy Use of Richard Wolffe
The New York Times this morning has a remarkable story, and incredibly, the article's author, Brian Stelter, doesn't even acknowledge, let alone examine, what makes the story so significant. In essence, the chairman of General Electric (which owns MSNBC), Jeffrey Immelt, and the chairman of News Corporation (which owns Fox News), Rupert Murdoch, were brought into a room at a "summit meeting" for CEOs in May, where Charlie Rose tried to engineer an end to the "feud" between MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Fox's Bill O'Reilly. According to the NYT, both CEOs agreed that the dispute was bad for the interests of the corporate parents, and thus agreed to order their news employees to cease attacking each other's news organizations and employees.
Most notably, the deal wasn't engineered because of a perception that it was hurting either Olbermann or O'Reilly's show, or even that it was hurting MSNBC. To the contrary, as Olbermann himself has acknowledged, his battles with O'Reilly have substantially boosted his ratings. The agreement of the corporate CEOs to cease criticizing each other was motivated by the belief that such criticism was hurting the unrelated corporate interests of GE and News Corp:
The reconciliation -- not acknowledged by the parties until now -- showcased how a personal and commercial battle between two men could create real consequences for their parent corporations. A G.E. shareholders' meeting, for instance, was overrun by critics of MSNBC (and one of Mr. O’Reilly's producers) last April. . . .
In late 2007, Mr. O’Reilly had a young producer, Jesse Watters, ambush Mr. Immelt and ask about G.E.'s business in Iran, which is legal, and which includes sales of energy and medical technology. G.E. says it no longer does business in Iran.
Mr. O’Reilly continued to pour pressure on its corporate leaders, even saying on one program last year that "If my child were killed in Iraq, I would blame the likes of Jeffrey Immelt." The resulting e-mail to G.E. from Mr. O’Reilly's viewers was scathing. . .
Over time, G.E. and the News Corporation concluded that the fighting "wasn’t good for either parent," said an NBC employee with direct knowledge of the situation. But the session hosted by Mr. Rose provided an opportunity for a reconciliation, sealed with a handshake between Mr. Immelt and Mr. Murdoch.
Though Olbermann denies he was part of any deal, the NYT says that there has been virtually no criticism of Fox by Olbermman, or MSNBC by O'Reilly, since June 1 when the deal took effect. That's mostly but not entirely true. On June 17, after President Obama accused Fox News of fomenting hostility towards his agenda, and Fox responded by saying that the "other networks" were pure pro-Obama outlets, Olbermann did voice fairly stinging criticisms of Fox as "more of a political entity than is the Republican National Committee right now, only it's fraudulently disguised as some sort of news organization."
But a review of all of Olbermann's post-June 1 shows does reveal that he has not ever criticized (or even mentioned) Bill O'Reilly since then and barely ever mentions Fox News any longer. And on June 1 -- the last time Olbermann mentioned O'Reilly -- Olbermann claimed at the end of his broadcast that he would cease referring to O'Reilly in the future because ignoring him (and "quarantining" Fox) would supposedly help get O'Reilly off the air ("So as of this show‘s end, I will retire the name, the photograph, and the caricature").
So here we have yet another example -- perhaps the most glaring yet -- of the corporations that own our largest media outlets controlling and censoring the content of their news organizations based on the unrelated interests of the parent corporation. In light of that, just marvel at what the supreme establishment-power-worshiper Charlie Rose said dismissively in March, 2003, when he had Amy Goodman on his show as a condescending example of someone who opposed the Iraq War, after Goodman touted the vital importance of "independent media" in America:
ROSE: I don't know what "independent" means -- "independent" in contrast to what?
GOODMAN: It means not being sponsored by the corporations, the networks -- like NBC, CBS, ABC: NBC owned by General Electric, CBS owned by Viacom, or ABC owned by Disney --
ROSE: My point in response to that would be that we do need you . . . . Having said that, I promise you, CBS News and ABC News and NBC News are not influenced by the corporations that may own those companies. Since I know one of them very well and worked for one of them.
That's the very same Charlie Rose who sat there with the CEO of GE and the CEO of News Corp. as an agreement was reached to order their news employees to stop criticizing the activities of Fox and GE in order to protect the corporate interests of those parents.
It makes no difference what one thinks of O'Reilly's attacks on the corporate activities of GE or Olbermann's criticisms of O'Reilly and Fox News. Whatever one's views on that are -- and I watch neither show very often -- those are perfectly legitimate subjects for news reporting and commentary, and the corporate decree to stop commenting on those topics is nothing less than corporate censorship. A reader last night put it this way by email:
It's interesting and somewhat shocking to me that a NYT article wouldn't even mention the effect on the hosts' journalistic freedom. . . . I assume that both Olbermann and O'Reilly would not have agreed to the truce, as the battle is ratings gold for both of them, and I'm sure they frankly hate each other and enjoy it.
The sad truth is that what Olbermann and O'Reilly were doing in this particular instance was one of the rare examples of good journalism on these types of shows. Olbermann was holding O'Reilly's feet to the fire about his repeated falsehoods and embarrassing positions. In turn, O'Reilly was giving the public accurate and disturbing information about General Electric, including extensive technology dealings with Iran. In my personal opinion, this was one of the rare useful pieces of information O'Reilly ever presented to his audience, and Olbermann was there to show how lousy the rest of O'Reilly's information was. Though it was in the context of a bitter feud, the two men were actually engaging in real journalism, at least in this case.
So now GE is using its control of NBC and MSNBC to ensure that there is no more reporting by Fox of its business activities in Iran or other embarrassing corporate activities, while News Corp. is ensuring that the lies spewed regularly by its top-rated commodity on Fox News are no longer reported by MSNBC. You don't have to agree with the reader's view of the value of this reporting to be highly disturbed that it is being censored.
This is hardly the first time evidence of corporate control over the content of NBC and MSNBC has surfaced. Last May, CNN's Jessica Yellin said that when she was at MSNBC, "the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this [the Iraq War] was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation"; "the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives ... to put on positive stories about the president"; and "they would turn down stories that were more critical and try to put on pieces that were more positive." Katie Couric said that when she was at NBC, "there was a lot of undercurrent of pressure not to rock the boat for a variety of reasons, where it was corporate reasons or other considerations" not to be too critical of the Bush administration. MSNBC's rising star, Ashleigh Banfield, was demoted and then fired after she criticized news media organizations generally, and Fox News specifically, for distorting their war coverage to appear more pro-government. And, of course, when MSNBC canceled Phil Donahue's show in the run-up to the Iraq war despite its being that network's highest-rated program, a corporate memo surfaced indicating that the company had fears of being associated with an anti-war and anti-government message.
And now we have an example of GE's forcibly silencing the top-rated commentator on MSNBC -- ordering him not to hold Fox News accountable any longer -- because, in return, News Corp. has agreed to silence its own commentators from criticizing GE. The corporations that own our largest news organizations have extensive relationships with the federal government. Anyone (like Charlie Rose) who denies that those relationships influence how these news organizations "report" on the government -- driven by the desire which corporate executives have to avoid alienating the government officials on whom their corporate interests depend, or avoid alienating potential customer bases for their products -- is completely delusional. GE's forcing Keith Olbermann to cease his criticism of Fox News and Bill O'Reilly is a clear and vivid example of how that works.
* * * * *
On a very related note: this week, former Newsweek reporter Richard Wolffe was a guest-host on MSNBC's Countdown while Keith Olbermann is on vacation. When Olbermann is there, Wolffe is a very frequent guest on Countdown, where he is called an "MSNBC political analyst" and comments on political news. All of this, despite the fact that Wolffe left Newsweek last March in order to join "Public Strategies, Inc.," the corporate communications firm run by former Bush White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, its President and CEO. According to the Press Release they issued to announce Wolffe's joining the company:
Wolffe, most recently Newsweek's senior White House correspondent, officially assumes his new position as a senior strategist on April 13, 2009. He will be based in the firm's Washington office, where he will advise several of its top clients. . . .
Public Strategies, Inc. is a business advisory firm that serves a diverse clientele including some of the world's largest and best-known corporations, nonprofit organizations, associations and professional firms. Public Strategies helps forward-thinking organizations assess public opinion and risk, and develops strategies for managing corporate reputation and uncertainty. Much of its practice involves managing high-stakes campaigns for corporate clients, anticipating and responding to crises.
Having Richard Wolffe host an MSNBC program -- or serving as an almost daily "political analyst" -- is exactly tantamount to MSNBC's just turning over an hour every night to a corporate lobbyist. Wolffe's role in life is to advance the P.R. interests of the corporations that pay him, including corporations with substantial interests in virtually every political issue that MSNBC and Countdown cover. Yet MSNBC is putting him on as a guest-host and "political analyst" on one of its prime-time political shows. What makes that even more appalling is that, as Ana Marie Cox first noted, neither MSNBC nor Wolffe even disclose any of this.
This is a conflict so severe that it's incurable by disclosure: who
wouldn't realize that you can't present paid corporate hacks as
objective political commentators? But the fact that they don't even
bother to disclose that just serves to illustrate how non-existent is
the line between corporate interests and "news reporting" in the United
States. Then again, Wolffe himself -- when it was previously revealed
that he was exploiting his position as a Newsweek reporter covering the Obama campaign to leverage access to Obama in order to write a glowing book about him -- said this:
And [Wolffe] suggested he’s not that different from other reporters in an era in which the business and the profession of journalism have gotten closer and closer.
"The idea that journalists are somehow not engaged in corporate activities is not really in touch with what's going on. Every conversation with journalists is about business models and advertisers," he said, recalling that, on the day after the 2008 election, Newsweek sent him to Detroit to deliver a speech to advertisers.
"You tell me where the line is between business and journalism," he said.
That's who MSNBC is presenting as a host and "political analyst" on one of its news commentary programs: someone who is paid by large corporations to propagandize the public and who explicitly says that "journalists are engaged in corporate activities." Then again, MSNBC itself is censored by its corporate executives to ensure that the parent company's corporate interests are advanced by its "news reporting," so in many ways, Wolffe's sleaze and corporate whoredom are the perfect face for this network.
These dual stories of GE/Olbermann and Wolffe reveal what NBC and MSNBC really are about as vividly as anything since the "military analyst" scandal. Remember that indescribably informative NBC News/MSNBC scandal: when it was revealed that both news outlets (along with most other major television outlets) were presenting as "independent military analysts" a whole slew of former Generals with substantial, undisclosed corporate interests in the policies they were promoting and doing so in coordination with a secret Pentagon propaganda program? Despite front-page NYT promotion, Congressional investigations, and even a Pulitzer Prize awarded to the NYT's David Barstow for uncovering all of that, NBC's Brian Williams (like virtually every other news outlet) to this day has never so much as informed his viewers of this story, and they continue to use some of those very same former generals as "analysts."
There are many reasons why our establishment press exists to do little other than serve the interests of the political and financial establishment and to mindlessly amplify government claims. The virtual disapparance of the line between large corporate interests and journalism (as Richard Wolffe himself noted) is certainly one of the leading factors.
UPDATE: On Richard Wolffe's bio page at Public Strategies, Inc., the role he plays on MSNBC and NBC News is actually touted to the firm's corporate clients and potential clients:
In addition, Wolffe is an NBC political analyst. He provides political commentary on several MSNBC programs, Meet The Press, and TODAY.
They're basically telling their clients and prospective clients: if you hire us to control and disseminate your political messaging, you'll have someone working for you -- Richard Wolffe -- who has a regular platform on MSNBC and NBC News, where he's presented as an independent "political analyst." And this is how they describe what he does for the firm: "Wolffe provides high-level counsel and insight to our clients on how to manage their reputations in a complex public environment." How much more blatantly sleazy could that be?
103 Comments so far
Show AllMr. Greenwald,
Sleazy you ask? What about surprising?
Greenwald sez: "...who wouldn't realize that you can't present paid corporate hacks as objective political commentators?"
***
All Republicans and Faux Nooz viewers, along with multiple millions of other USAns. In other words, most 21st Century media consumers.
I no longer watch TV, but when I did, Keith was a regular choice...especially his "Special Comments". He did state in some interview that GE never told him what to say. He also remarked that his Special Comments" came out of the passion of the moment concerning a particularly bothersome topic. For him to succumb to this censoring over O'Orally is quite interesting. I would not be surprised if he does not return. Then again, who knows what is real any longer. Maybe it's all a side show and the price of admission is continued slavery under this fascist state in which we now reside.
sierra7
In this year, 2009, if any viewers or readers of "news" do not yet believe that 99% of the "news" is manufactured is:
Dumb
Dumb
and, Dumber
And, to expect the NYT to believe in "honest journalism" is to bring on the biggest laugh of all! Remember, the NYT (as the so-called, "Newspaper of historical record" for the country) assisted (along with numerous others of the "free press") the last criminal administration slaughter so many of our young and Iraqis...and are now on the road to assist the criminal enterprise in Afghanistan.....
There are "alternative sources" like FSTV, GRIT TV, and print sources. And there are, surprise, surprise: BOOKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But, those alternative sources, especially print including books that take a bit of effort, which sadly to say, most Americans lack hugely.
Our media is corrupt along with all the rest of the "democratic process" here in Constitutional America!
Fox is a sleazy propagander outlet of loud mouth Bill O Reilly, and Hannity.
This is how all progressive projects are suffocated under a mass of corporate sleaze.
Yes the corporations must take over completely and the world must fall under the heel of their enforcers.
Is there any way to fight them? Is there any way to resist their brainwash but to ignore them completely and live like hippies in the woods???
I really don't know.
Yes.
Like I have said for years: If you watch T.V. news, you are being brainwashed. The only national news program I watch is Democracy Now.Example: Amy just did two pieces on the government spying on non-violent war dissenters and John Walker Lindh that were excellent, but I can guarantee you that the whore media will never do this kind of reporting!
Paul Revere
Excellent commentary on Democracy Now! and its interview of John Walker Lindh's parents who revealed how their son had been tortured and used as a scapegoat by the military and the U.S. government. It was difficult watching that program and not be outraged at the fact that Lindh is serving twenty years in prison because, as former Attorney General John Ashcroft falsely proclaimed, Lindh had taken up arms against the Americans. As you say, why is the mainstream media not reporting on Lindh and how antiwar resisters in the Pacific Northwest in Olympia, Wa. were illegally spied upon by a civilian who was employed by the military at Fort Lewis, Wa.?
Also, what Greenwald could have also said was how Howard Dean had substituted for Olbermann and, as expected, criticized [justifiably] the Republicans while shilling for the Democrats and Obama while never recognizing that Afghanistan has now become Obama's war if not his own Vietnam.
One also has to wonder if MSNBC has ordered Olbermann not to have guests on his program such as David Ray Griffin or Barrie Zwicker or Webster Tarpley or Jim Marrs who would point out to Olbermann and his audience that the official explanation that the Bush administration has given to the American people [and which has been sanctioned by Obama] concerning the events of 9/11/01 has been a gigantic fairy tale which the mainstream media has been all too quick to accept as being true.
All true.
As to the retired military generals who were hired by the TV networks as independent experts, even though they were in fact on the payrolls of military contractors and receiving regular message briefings from the Pentagon, I don't think ANY of the news networks have ever disclosed that or apologized for it. Have they?
I find that both FAIR and Columbia Journalism Review are good sources of information about corporate influence on journalism.
And [Wolffe] suggested he’s not that different from other reporters in an era in which the business and the profession of journalism have gotten closer and closer.
"You tell me where the line is between business and journalism," he said.
Translated into English from whatever they call the native language in Profiteria, this reads: "The USA is Dead".
This entire episode has all too creepy "Rollerball" (1975 version) feeling. Rival businesses calling a temporary truce once the conflict began to make some of the higher-ups personally uncomfortable has a dire corporate feudalism flavor. That Charlie Rose acted as mediator (plus his obfuscation to Amy Goodman) for this corrupt just permanently lowered him several pegs in my book.
"How much more blatantly sleazy could that be?"
If there's any limit at all, it's not obvious. The difficulty isn't persuading the general public that they're getting "fair and balanced" news coverage. The sheeple will believe almost anything the "magic box" tells them to believe, no matter how outrageous, so long as their limited attention span isn't stretched too far.
The tricky part is ensuring that all paid sponsors are fully aware of the controlling realities without giving those realities any wider publicity. Even possible leakage isn't really a major issue as you can usually count on your media colleagues to suppress it and the general public to ignore it in any case.
And MSNBC is seen as the "liberal" network, offsetting Fox.
The hosts of these shows dance to the tunes of their corporate bosses. That's for sure. Even Rachel Maddow has her five minutes of pure giddy entertainment at the end of the show, though to me it's tastefully done. And a certain seriousness lies beneath the zippy veneer.
Meanwhile, over on CNN Blitzer still opens his hour with the latest on Michael Jackson. This before everything else. His "show" is becoming stupider and stupider. Why? Well, either this approach to the "news" reflects on us, the great American Booboisie, or the craven mentalities of his corporate sponsors. Anyone opt for both?
And then there's Lou Dobbs. Ah heck, why not reincarnate George Wallace and let's have an openly racist dog and pony show during his hour. His obsession with "illegals" is sick. Though the guy went to Harvard College his nativist roots appear to stick. I don't dare look at his biography. Was he raised in the Texas panhandle to a family of Confederate flag waving neo Nazis proselytizing the everlasting lamb of God?
And then there's the all time prize winner. Fox. The last time I looked there was Sean Hannity having a calm and friendly conversation with some guy who believes in reincarnation. The nice thing about believing anything you want to believe is that you can believe anything you want to believe. And that means anything.
So if you can believe anything you want regarding God why not extend that to politics?
Rose is and always has been a wolf in sheep's (PBS) clothing. Now most people finally recognize PBS is nothing but more of the same... they just talk softer and wear flannel shirts.
Keith did a great job, but in the end, he NEEDS a job. At least he spoke his mind. He is/was the only talking head I can watch--which is rarely.
GE sucks. Unfortunately the only thing most see is the "cool" side of it, courtesy of Lorne Michaels and his corral of "stars", not the dark warmongering / public manipulating side.
GE sucks. Oops, sorry! Did I mention that already?
Why does he "NEEDS a job"?!?
He has already made several times more money than the average worker will see in a lifetime. Why can't he just retire to Connecticut and write books, or better yet ditch the Corporatists and start filing stories for DemocracyNow! ?
If you had millions of dollars, would you lead such a lavish lifestyle that you would still need a high income Corporate shill job? Even if you did, would you not expect yourself to see that your lifestyle was not worth the cost of what your shill job was doing to your Republic and your soul?
Matti
Very well said. Does Olbermann really need to keep working in order to pull in even more money to keep up and maintain what one assumes is a lavish lifestyle? Could he not employ a little integrity by living in a less expensive home than he is already living by not working for a corporation {GE] that keeps the war machine afloat? Of course he can. But in all probability he will not because he likes the perks that a high profile position brings to someone like him who works in the public domain.
Hey, I bet Olbermann could get a job on a fine station like FSTV. He could reach several handfuls of people who think like he does. Yeah, that's a thought.
As much as I like Keith Olbermann and his views, I don't think it's the money that keeps him working. All powerful, talented men have huge egos and if they stopped doing what they do or were forced to stop, would lose all sense of identity. Of course, the money is important, too. Once they get used to having all that, it's really hard to quit. In the real world, money=power=happiness, I guess.
Keith does a pretty good job on the issues he's been permitted to address. But, do you ever hear a serious discussion about Palestine, Latin America, "card check", single payer, and other issues that GE prefers we not learn or think about?
That's why I obtain almost all of my news from CD, Democracy Now, a few other websites, magazines, & books.
What we can do is persuade everybody who will listen to obtain their news in the same way, and to constantly pester the President and our Congresspeople as most of us do.
I suspect Olbermann "didn't make a deal" as he said, rather he is just obeying the instructions of those above (probably the ensure he doesn't become another Donahue).
The question is whether Countdown will have so many items off limits to talk about, it will become irrelevant.
Saw an episode of Countdown recently with Howard Dean as guest host. Dean was pathetic as he read emotionless the script from the teleprompter.
Bring America Back !!!!.....!....I think if Greenwald could re:title this article it would be: 'Whatever Rupert Murdoch Wants, Rupert Gets !!!'
****Corporatism of journalism is not new==they have an entire convention annually now--usually with Moyers as the keynoter, to discuss a cure for it ! Third annual coming up or fourth, I believe. No cure yet.
****MSNBC has been removed from at least two of the Cable Providers I had access to: from "Regular Cable" to
"Premium Cable". So if I want MSNBC TV I must pay a lot more. Yet multiple FOX channels are there as regular cable. I used to go to the website for Olberman's 'Special Comments" but now I guess I don't have to, under the censorship described in this article.
****FOX got Glenn Beck from CNN, as if Beck was not pandering
for it with his NeoCon rants. Seems to me, Joe Scarborough at MSNBC mornings is tantalizing Rupert with the same fervor, but not the same irrationalizations as Beck.
But if I were Murdoch, what's wrong with having your very own Foxes in the CNN-houses (pronounced hen houses ) ????
While I have always felt that Keith Olbermann, whom I admire, avoids certain stories and at times pulls his punches, to keep from clashing with his corporate masters (i.e., MSNBC owner GE and the network's corporate sponsors), I hadn't imagined anything as sickening as this. That Olbermann, the only mainstream media source that regularly, pointedly and hilariously calls out O'Reilly and his network on the routine falsehoods they peddle to their masses of gullible viewers, has been silenced by the bosses at MSNBC and FOX, tells you all you need to know about the corporate media. FOX gets away with its garbage "reporting" only because there is virtually no one in the mainstream press to call them on it. Now make that literally no one.
Perhaps because they have imagination on their side Fox comes out with a more entertaining version of the news, offering a veneer of greater depth and liveliness than the other major networks provide. That may be one reason Fox outdoes the others in the ratings.
Apparently, there people who enjoy a good O'Reilly rant. Do the "angry white males" of lore still exist? That "birther" lady who blew up before a congressman last week, making every news show, certainly expressed a lot of festering fury out there in the heartland.
I hadn't imagined "anything as sickening as this" either, regarding Olbermann. or Wolffe, espeically Wolffe. But as the author and others here have said, it's all part of the 'business." And, yes, reaffirming the basic principles learned in Journalism 101 at an annual convention is always bracing. Too bad they impede personal ambition and corporate profits. That's the real world which these "journalists" always return to on the morning after.
Are you serious?!!!! Fox is filled with misinformation and out-and-out lies. A majority of the hosts are merchants of hate and spew falsehoods which defame President Obama and anyone who is liberal or progressive. They dispense with the truth at every opportunity and titilate and incite to violence the lunatic fringe with their fearmongering. I truly believe they are a stain on the fabric of our democracy---a true extension of Orwell's 1984 "Two Minute Hate."
I'm not certain what you are referring to.
But it obviously has nothing to do with anything I said.
Let's begin by understanding first that which we disagree with. Then we can go on from there.
Okay? Nor was what I said that obscure. Are you sure we're on the same wave length? Do you care? Never mind.
In defense of mainstream tv, I often enjoy news from Olberman, Maddow, Stewart and Colbert. It's also nice to check out C-Span on weekends. Last night Amy introduced Chomsky for an hour-plus of his wisdom.
Greg R
Unfortunately Chomsky's wisdom does not seem to include questioning the events of what occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. When asked about this a few years ago at a town hall meeting, Chomsky infamously replied "who cares?" who was behind those attacks. I strongly suspect that the victims who lost their loved ones on that day most certainly care. One has to also include, amazingly, Howard Zinn, who in an interview on The Real News a few months ago, declared that seeking a new and open and honest investigation of what happened on that heinous day would be, in his words, a "diversion". One has to wonder when these [alleged] seekers of truth decided to start emulating the neoconservatives on this important issue.
Erroll August 2nd, 2009 1:16 pm...........When they realized the powers behind 9/11 were also the powers behind their funding. They will deny it of course, but what possible reason could there be for men of this intelligence to deny the facts of 9/11? And I am not talking about the same "facts" that Obamassiah mentioned in his speech in Cairo.
Myself and many, many others will fight for the truth of 9/11 until our last breath. Even though NYC CAN had their 70,000 signatures in NYC rejected by some bribed clerk, they will also continue to fight. Please support their effort in any way possible.
In regard to our most recent history, the outrageous lie of 9/11 is behind everything. The "official story" CANNOT AND WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND.
thanks for standing up and fighting!
as for chomsky and zinn and their "denial" of 9something or other:
maybe they aren't denying anything...
maybe they simply don't want to commit suicide (in more ways than one).
you would think that that is most likely what would happen if they decided to speak up.
how easy would it be for whomever was behind that horrible day to silence them?
you would think that two big names like these guys would most definitely need to be silenced.
or am I wrong?
david ray griffin and all of the other not-very-well-known-troofers are easy for the powers to silence by simply ignoring and denouncing them as nut-jobs, or whatever.
but chomsky and zinn making waves and using their huge influence?
now that would be a real problem for the powers.
i don't really know chomsky or zinn's reasons either. i'm just trying to give you another possible reason.
anyway... who really knows what they privately think about the event besides them.
so let's cherish the valuable info and critiques of the power structures that they have provided within their work... instead of denouncing these guys or assuming what their reasons may be for not speaking up for the truth movements.
markpaddles August 2nd, 2009 4:26 pm...Have you read any of Chomsky's or Zinn's books? Or Barsamian's interviews with Chomsky? There life has been spent criticizing the US government...and in Zinn's case, writing a true history of this country...not the crap you find in classrooms. I and many other truthers (not troofers, please) believe they are gatekeepers, much like Goodman, Palast et al. They know the truth or at least what the truth is not, but choose to look the other way...like a vast majority of Americans. Who knows why? Fear. Security Or in the case of many Americans, as my good friend who has the 911ddvdproject.com (free dvds BTW) says, "You cannot awaken a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Yes, I have read most of their stuff.
What's your point?
markpaddles August 2nd, 2009 5:53 pm......My point being that if these individuals have spent most of their lives exposing US policies, why is 9/11 so forbidden? IMHO, it's because they are witting or unwitting gatekeepers. And, the fact that they are well-known writers, intellects, linguists et al, does not put them above criticism for their silence on a subject as monumentally important as 9/11.
I agree. Criticism of them is fine and should be expected.
My original point of answering your rhetorical question (in your original post) was that maybe they choose to stay silent because they don't want to find themselves prematurely six feet under, or see harm brought to their family. It's a reasonable excuse. But, again... I'm just guessing.
markpaddles August 2nd, 2009 6:59 pm.....I imagine we are all guessing. It is pitiful that we are (and probably have been for a long time) at a point where speaking truth to power has become a life threatening act. Anyone who does not believe we are living in a fascist state would be well advised to take a good second look and start to get seriously involved in some way to expose this government's true nature.
markpaddles August 2nd, 2009 4:26 pm.......................BTW, their calling DRG a "nut job" would be a monumental misjudgment. He's a noted theologian and has written numerous books on the topic and more books on 9/11 than anyone else and absolutely debunked the PM article concerning the pancake collapse. Here's a recent audio tape that is pretty explosive regarding OBL.
http://informationclearinghouse.info/
article23127.htm
That's sad about Zinn. Didn't he used to favor a new investigation? I thought I remembered him endorsing "A New Pearl Harbor"?
I hate it when any of these scholars call questioning 911 a diversion, but are then happy to discuss any other diversions from Marxism to pop culture.
I'm willing to give Chomsky the benefit of the doubt and say that he doesn't want to risk his credibility on unproven theories. But I would argue that it has been proven that the official story has more holes than Swiss cheese. So he could at least call the investigation flawed.
The problem is that a new investigation will just be another whitewash.
What bothers me about Chomsky is that he doesn't speak (or get arrested) at protests.
Hopedup
Actually Zinn endorsed in 2005 David Ray Griffin's excellent work The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions in which he said:
"David Ray Griffin has done admirable and painstaking research in reviewing the mysteries surrounding the 9-11 attacks. It is the most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration's relationship to that historic and troubling event."
Zinn writes that Griffin's book is the "most persuasive argument that I have seen for further investigation..." but now in 2009 he has come to a different conclusion [that another investigation would somehow be a "diversion"] despite the fact that the questions that Griffin and others have raised about 9/11/01 still remain most valid.
Regarding your belief that "a new investigation will just be another whitewash", as I point out in another comment further down, that does not have to be the case if another investigation is composed of professionals and scholars and others instead of politicians who are unable to look at the evidence objectively.
This country and the world deserve to know the truth instead of the obfuscations that were put forth by the Kean/Zelikow Commission.
Much like with JFK, I just think that the government would stonewall or sabotage any attempt at a new investigation. But I'm supportive of any effort to try and dig up the truth about 911. I think at this point, maybe people should try to focus on uncovering pieces of the puzzle or perhaps a whistleblower. For example, I would very much like to see a movement to force the government to release video of the Pentagon attack.
The chances of some commission coming up with any definitive facts about 9-11 that would lead to charging someone with a crime are next to nil. We're all free to pretend we know something because of this coincidence or that, or because someone supposedly saw, heard, or found something. We could act like a dog chasing its tail, or we could remain in a world of hard and true facts and realities, and try to improve those realities.
Greg R August 2nd, 2009 5:24 pm...The facts are there and NO ONE is chasing their tails, but those in denial. Th "facts" presented by the 9/11 Commission and the NIST report have been debunked left and right. If you believe the hard and true facts are those presented by the "official story", I can only say, good luck.
Have you done any research? May I ask what you have read or what sites you have visited?
I did quite a bit of research. One of the most annoying things is the tremendous amount of ludicrous crap that some think of as evidence. Yes, there are so many coincidences that it's kind of mind-blowing, but real evidence, not hearsay, is just not there. Now I think it's quite possible that somebody knew something, and let the events occur, but even if true, good luck trying to prove it.
Greg R August 2nd, 2009 7:35 pm..........Details, please. Specifics to which I may reply. How would YOU counter this?
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2009/0702-Flight77.html
Greg R.
You seem to be implying that, despite easydoesit pointing out the plethora of evidence regarding the holes in the Bush administration's official version of what occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, "good luck trying to prove it." I most strenuously disagree with that line of thinking. I lost a cousin, a fireman, who died in the WTC towers. I am sure that his family would want to know the truth about what happened on that day and whether the government lied to them and to other families concerning the events of 9/11/01. Despite what Chomsky thinks ["who cares?"] and Zinn [investigating 9/11/01 would supposedly be a "diversion"] it should be beyond doubt that those who lost their loved ones on that day would most certainly want a full and open and honest investigation to take place as opposed to the whitewash that occurred when the National Commission on Terror Attacks Upon the United States [aka the 9/11 Kean/Zelikow Commission Report] issued their findings without even discussing the possibility that any other explanation could be conceivable except for that given by the Bush administration. In other words, all the credible evidence strongly suggests that the fix was in since Zelikow, a Bush insider, determined who and who was not going to be investigated.
The point of all this is that another investigatory body most certainly should be formed composed, not of hack politicians, but of professionals such as engineers, architects, airline pilots and aviation professionals, as well as scholars and 9/11 survivors and those who had lost family members on that day. Despite Zinn's bizarre statement, seeking and demanding the truth should never be considered a "diversion".
Great, get those professionals together and let them do their study. Keep the government out of it. Make it your business if you think it's that important.
I must disagree with your assessment of Noam Chomsky's reaction to 9/11.
Beginning 09/19/01, Chomsky began giving interviews and publishing essays on the disasters on 9/11. In 2002 he republished most in a collection, "Noam Chomsky 9-11" through Seven Stories Press in New York. Much of that collection is available on his website chomsky.info.
Since then, Chomsky has continued to speak out on the root causes of our "war against terrorism", it's aftermath and its continuing affect on our foreign policy. Stepping outside the mandates of established institutionalized dissent, refusing to cow to the "state religion," Noam Chomsky offers invaluable insight into how the attack has affected us at home, and our image internationally.
To think all Noam Chomsky would have to say about 9/11 is "Who cares??", is beyond ludicrous. To think Noam Chomsky emulates neoconservatives is absurd.
Neilz
You believe that I am unfair to label Chomsky's words alongside the neoconservatives. The facts say otherwise. On May 16, 2004 while speaking in Budapest that left gatekeeper Noam Chomsky declared that "If it's true [that 9/11/01 was an inside job], who cares?". I did not say that all Chomsky ever said were those words. I did, however, say that he did say those words, which are words that one would expect coming more from a neoconservative rather than from a champion of dissent like Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky may offer "invaluable insight into how the attack has affected us at home" but his insight into inquiring who actually committed those attacks is less than inspiring. I own three or four of Chomsky's books which makes it all the more stunning and sad that Chomsky of all people would declare that it really doesn't matter who orchestrated those attacks. As I stated before, while he has no interest in finding out who pulled off those attacks, many if not most Americans certainly do. One finds it simply astonishing that Chomsky seems ignorant of the term false flag operation especially coming from someone who in the past has been so critical [justifiably] of the actions of the government.
Ah yes, the Kossuth Klub. I can certainly see why you would be upset.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7SPm-HFYLo
Although it is ambiguous in the video, I believe Chomsky, in uttering "who cares?" a few times at the end, was not referencing possible perpetrators, but inane conspiracy theories and fringe media hype having no factual credibility and the people who promulgate them. But it is ambiguous in the video. Ripe for cherry-picking.
Neilz
In essence you are making my point. If we assume that Chomsky was referring to "inane conspiracy theories" when he proclaimed "who cares" this then means that he is giving absolutely no credence at all to the possibility that the attacks on SAept. 11, 2001 could have been either a cover up or an inside job [or both]. Chomsky hosted a forum on the internet in 2006 and in an exchange with a person called ZNet Sustainer said this:http://www.oilempire.us/chomsky.html
"I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no historical parallel."
"Utterly insane"? No "serious evidence"?
We are supposed to believe that it is somehow more credible that 19 [alleged] crazed Arabs were somehow able to overpower not only the flight crews but also all of the passengers on three of the four airplanes, not with Uzi submachine guns or pistols or flamethrowers, but with of all things, box cutters?
We are also supposed to believe that four hijacked airplanes were able to outwit the combined forces of NORAD, the FAA and the United States Air Force along with the most sophisticated defense systems on the planet. It has never been clear why all these systems failed on this one particular day, only that for this to happen was simply a massive coincidence.
We are not supposed to question, at least according to Noam Chomsky, how an airplane [if it was a plane] managed to somehow penetrate the most heavily guarded building on earth, namely the Pentagon.
We are not supposed to wonder how three high rise steel framed structures [that would include Bldg. 7, which was not hit by a plane]collapsed due to fires in such an extremely short period of time [10 seconds] even though no such buildings have ever collapsed due to fires anywhere in the world, even before or after 9/11/01.
We are not supposed to inquire why the 9/11 Commission Report failed to mention that over one hundred firefighters, along with people trapped in the WTC towers and medical personnel and even the media, had mentioned that they heard one sound before those planes hit the buildings and that was the word explosions.
We are not supposed to ask how the BBC had reported that at least six of the [alleged] hijackers were reported to have been alive and well when those attacks were carried out. One of them even went to an American embassy in the Middle East to protest his innocence. Naturally this rather relevant piece of information also failed to make it into the report.
These are just a small fraction of the anomalies that occurred on 9/11/01. But according to the esteemed professor it is "utterly insane" to even bring this up because all this is not "serious evidence". Thankfully there are serious journalists, both in this country and around the world, who have had the intelligence, unlike Chomsky and Zinn, to not have been duped by the Bush administration's feeble explanations by asking the serious questions regarding the events of 9/11/01. By doing so, they can state unambiguously that they most certainly do care who committed those acts on Sept. 11, 2001.