A Conspiracy of Silence - Democratic Underground

H2O Man

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Feb-16-05 10:41 AM
Original message

A Conspiracy of Silence

"A conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words." - John Lennon

Yesterday a federal court ruled that Judith Miller and Matt Cooper have to testify in front of the federal grand jury investigating the White House's exposing the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. One of the concerns that has been expressed by people on the political left is that the country needs to be careful to not set a precedent that allows the government to infringe upon a free press. While the ruling in the Plame case reinforced the law as it has stood since at least 1972, it is important to examine what the free press should be .... and what it is not.

I think that it is disappointing that the major news stations are giving far more attention to the legal cases of two accused serial sex offenders, and of a young murderer. Yet this is in line with the media being largely a business interest: the entertainment value of a pop singer and a catholic priest sexually abusing children translates into the "reality tv" audience watching the cable soft porn. The murder case reassures that same audience that the social novacaine that they are being dosed with is as safe as mother's milk.

Meanwhile, Chris Matthews on MSNBC's HardBall, while interviewing Matt Cooper, gives an awkwardly unsolicited statement that he never had gotten inside information on the Plame case .... although the first two paragraphs of Joseph Wilson's book tell us that Matthews absolutely did get inside information on the Plame leak.

This raises the question: is the mainstream media actuaslly a free press? Or is it actually just part of a the government, as much so as the republican or democratic party, and more so than any third party? Or does the very raising of such questions indicate a paranoid tendency to believe in vast conspiracies?

"As a result (of asking questions about the media), I am aware I may be attacked in the same fashion as Oliver Stone even before his movie JFK appeared in theaters. The attack consists of words like conspiracy and paranoia similar to the verbal accusations during the Inquisitions. To attack someone as conspiracy prone because he does not believe in the cover story .... is ridiculous. ..... (P)aranoia cannot be properly used properly be used to define someone who studies economics and history and reveals certain facts. As a matter of proper definition, such findings are the result of the opposite of 'paranois.' Having said this, let's take a look at a few recent examples of how the game plan of the High Cabal, Winston Churchill's phrase for the power elite, operates."
- Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, "JFK...", page 335

Prouty, who was the actual "Man X" from Stone's movie JFK, wrote about what he recognized as a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. He cites the major media's behavior in showing the degree of social control the power elite enjoys. I will focus briefly on two points Prouty makes in his book.

The first is that the original news reports, including the CBS on the spot bulletin, stated: "Three bursts of automatic gunfire, apparently from automatic weapons, were fired at President Kennedy's motorcade in downtown Dallas." This report of "automatic gunfire" was used in the initial reports on tv stations and in newspapers.

Yet we know that the reports of "automatic gunfire," which is also the sound of crossfire, would disappear within 24 hours. We know from Tip O'Neill's book, "Man of the House," that two of JFK's top aides were ordered by the FBI to lie to the Warren Commission about the gun fire they hear that day. (page 211) Both Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell told the FBI they were positive that much of the gunfire came from the grassy knoll; they were told not to tell the truth, because it did not fit the cover story.

Was there a "cover story"? Perhaps one that had been prepared for the media in advance? Prouty was in New Zealand at the time of the assassination. He bought a "special edition" of the ChristChurch Star, the local newspaper where he was staying. The paper went to press in New Zealand at the same time police in Dallas were taking a relatively unknown 24-year old marine, Lee Harvey Oswald, into custody. Yet the New Zealand paper already had a studio photo of Oswald, along with highly detailed information about the past five years of Oswald's life. The paper identified him as the lone gunman who killed the American president, although it would be hours before Oswald was charged with Officer Tippet's murder, much less JFK's.

The content of the paper indicates that the information package on Oswald was prepared before 11-22-63. It would be interesting to hear any other explanation for this paper.

If the media was serving the general public with outright lies in 1963, is there any reason to believe that things have improved today? Or is it reasonable to question if most of the mainstream media is participating with the government in telling the same types of lies today? Think of Judith Miller: her pre-invasion stories on Iraq indicated that the USA faced a huge threat from saddam's WMDs; she is being investigated for informing a suspected terrorist front that the FBI was planning a raid; she advocated for a powerful role in the new Iraqi government for Ahmed Chalabi on a recent "HardBall" appearance; and she played an unkown role in the Plame case. Is Judith Miller a journalist, or is she an administration advocate?

I have serious concerns about the dangers this administration poses to the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights. But I see the Judith Millers of the media as part and parcel of that threat.