04-11-2014, 01:44 PM
In the UK today, a Home Office Minister, Norman Baker has resigned from the Government. Baker has been described, by John Rentoul of The Independent as "unfit for office", with his belief in "conspiracy theories" as a contributor to this. The case that Rentoul refers to is the Dr David Kelly "suicide". I have to confess, I have done no reading on this case and therefore I offer no opinion on it. Rentoul refers to Aaronovitch's book which explains why people are attracted to conspiracy theories (as if facts and evidence have nothing to do with it)
I challenged Rentoul on this, "History has shown that many things described at the time as "conspiracy theory" have, actually, been fact."
His reply: "No, it hasn't"
I am not expecting a reply to my follow up questions.
The use of the tag "conspiracy theorist" as synonymous with "nutcase" is my chief pet hate, and the biggest indicator that you will find for lazy journalism. It is simply a cliché for "someone who doesn't believe the official version of the truth".
I am supposing that the origins of the phrase come from the JFK case. Opposition to the "Oswald did it alone" story meant, by definition, a conspiracy. Hence any opposing argument became known as a "conspiracy theory". The problem is now twofold. Firstly, despite what Rentoul believes, history has proven conspiracies exist. I don't need to list them here, of all places. In particular, history has shown that the accepted version of events was palpably false, and the truth was that which was previously ridiculed. The earth is round, after all.
Secondly, the use of the tag "conspiracy theorist" to demean someone who offers a different version, where the accepteid version is a conspiracy, is just plain lazy and stupid. As David Ray Griffin said in The New Pearl Harbor, 9/11 is a conspiracy which ever way you look at it. The question is, whose conspiracy was it?
How about a book - Jim DiEugenio I'm looking at you! - that lists historical cases which have been proven not to have been truthfully explained at the time?
I challenged Rentoul on this, "History has shown that many things described at the time as "conspiracy theory" have, actually, been fact."
His reply: "No, it hasn't"
I am not expecting a reply to my follow up questions.
The use of the tag "conspiracy theorist" as synonymous with "nutcase" is my chief pet hate, and the biggest indicator that you will find for lazy journalism. It is simply a cliché for "someone who doesn't believe the official version of the truth".
I am supposing that the origins of the phrase come from the JFK case. Opposition to the "Oswald did it alone" story meant, by definition, a conspiracy. Hence any opposing argument became known as a "conspiracy theory". The problem is now twofold. Firstly, despite what Rentoul believes, history has proven conspiracies exist. I don't need to list them here, of all places. In particular, history has shown that the accepted version of events was palpably false, and the truth was that which was previously ridiculed. The earth is round, after all.
Secondly, the use of the tag "conspiracy theorist" to demean someone who offers a different version, where the accepteid version is a conspiracy, is just plain lazy and stupid. As David Ray Griffin said in The New Pearl Harbor, 9/11 is a conspiracy which ever way you look at it. The question is, whose conspiracy was it?
How about a book - Jim DiEugenio I'm looking at you! - that lists historical cases which have been proven not to have been truthfully explained at the time?