The "Is Amy Goodman CIA?" resolution at Pacifica

[Peter Lemkin]

So, Amy Goodman isn’t CIA? Then why is The Nation running this classic gatekeeping piece?

One knows it’s a dud immediately Richard Hofstadter hoves into view; when elementary transparency is held suspicious; and when democracy is equated to the triumph of the crank. By the way, who funds Eyal Press?

The Paranoid Style at Pacifica

posted by Eyal Press on 10/22/2009 @ 4:20pm

In his Wall Street Journal column yesterday, Tom Frank paid homage to Richard Hofstadter's famous essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." As Frank noted, Birthers convinced that Barack Obama's birth certificate was forged in a plot to turn the United States into a fascist state are heirs to a long tradition of conspiracy thinking that has periodically flourished on the fringes of the American right.

But the paranoid style has seeped into some institutions on the left as well. For proof, look no further than a recent meeting of the Pacifica radio network's National Board, where a resolution was introduced that requires all programmers to disclose funding sources above $5,000. "The reason I created this motion," Chris Condon, a member of Pacifica's National Governance Committee, explained, "is because there has been a lot of debate about whether or not Amy Goodman has received CIA conduit foundation funding from the Ford Foundation and other places."

Amy Goodman is, of course, the co-host of Democracy Now!, an unabashedly progressive news program that airs on over 800 stations across the country. As anyone who has listened to even five minutes of the program knows, Goodman is about as likely to be on the payroll of the CIA as Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky. She has probably devoted more airtime to dissecting the CIA's transgressions in the past decade than any other member of her profession.

No matter, the Governance Committee at Pacifica passed the resolution, a step taken to discover whether you-know-who has been funneling money to Goodman to cover up "the truth" about 9/11. "We'd like to know what kind of 9/11 coverage the Ford Foundation paid for," said Condon. "The whole issue of 9/11 and Amy Goodman has been ongoing for years and years and years."

The disquieting coverage was apparently just journalism, as when Goodman had the gumption to ask David Ray Griffin, a 9/11 Truther who appeared on her program several years ago, to name some engineers who supported the theory that passenger planes could not have brought down the Twin Towers. (The real cause was explosives set off by the attack's covert plotters, 9/11 Truthers allege.) When Griffin referred vaguely to the notes in his book, Goodman persisted: "Name just one. Name just one structural engineering expert who said it is not feasible that the planes caused the towers to go down." "I'm sorry, I don't have that information at my fingertips," Griffin replied.

The suspicions about Goodman would be laughable were they not coming from board members at an independent radio network with a proud history of promoting progressive dialogue and dissent. Pacifica was founded by conscientious objectors a half-century ago and has stations in some of the largest markets (New York, Los Angeles, Washington) in the country. In the late 1990s, some of the network's supporters fought off what they believed was an attempt by the National Board to standardize programming and soften its edge.

The struggle was successful, but the unintended consequence was to democratize Pacifica in a way that has ended up empowering many cranks. Instead of serving as a vibrant home for incisive programming that challenges the assumptions of mainstream debate, the network has fallen into the hands of sectarians and crackpots whose control over the Governance Committee may be strong but whose hold on reality appears tenuous.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/487369

Discussion of issue at 911blogger:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21705

hope for 9/11 truth at pacifica?

if amy goodman is indeed a leftwing gatekeeper, and even if she is not, it is perhaps good news that pacifica has passed a resolution to see if the u.s. government “has been funneling money to Goodman to cover up ‘the truth’ about 9/11,” as the article says. or is this all just another gatekeeping ploy? guess we’ll have to wait and see.

assessing goodman’s role vis-a-vis 9/11 is a challenge. in one sense she has not done nearly enough. but in an objective sense, is it not fair to say that goodman has provided more significant coverage of 9/11 than most mainstream media? for example, goodman did in fact have david ray griffin on her show (as the article points out) for a meaningful segment, see http://www.democracynow.org/2004/5/26/th...r_a_debate. and goodman has also given significant time to the “loose change” filmmakers, http://www.democracynow.org/2006/9/11/ex...ose_change.

while covering 9/11, however, goodman has allowed “equal time” (in the old “fairness doctrine” sense) to the 9/11 debunko artists, an approach she usually does not employ with pet guests howard zinn and noam chomsky. see for example http://www.democracynow.org/2007/4/16/in...am_chomsky. and maybe that is a tip-off as to her true leftwing gatekeeper role—to allow just enough “civil debate” on 9/11 to pacify her fan base and fend off criticism that she is just as bad as the mainstream media, while ultimately keeping the lid on 9/11

This debate is now over: Amy Goodman = CIA.

Paul, I think you and many here have been in this 'business' of looking in the dark closets to know that it could just as easily be a way to discredit her in the eyes of those who watch her show and cause dissension in the ranks of alternative news viewers and believers. I don't know Amy personally, but have friends I trust who do and none think it credible...but bring on the evidence. Again, I think she has chosen [differently than you or I would have] on issues such as the major assassinations and 911, as well as the biggest covert operations - but if you look at topics she has covered [search the archive subject and summary list!], most give no aid nor comfort to the Empire - quite the opposite! People have different takes on how the hit in Dallas went down and different perspectives on how much the public can generally 'take' without turning-off [in this case physically]. I'm not privy to her own views on the subject, but have herd her call for a real investigation of 911 during pledge breaks - never on her show. There is nothing more than to destroy the few successful alternative news shows around the Borg would want. Consider that as one possible engine behind the story. The Nation has been used for that before and this is the kettle calling the pot black, perhaps. I don't find myself inclined to believe it. She may have been tricked into taking some funds that were dangled to ensnare her....she'd not be the first. CIA I'm satisfied [at this time] she is NOT.