9/11 honour and dishonour

[Ed Jewett]

9/11 honour and dishonour
http://backofthebook.ca/2010/04/14/911-h...nour/2445/

Posted by admin on April 14, 2010 · Leave a Comment

By Frank Moher
As it becomes increasingly clear that the official explanation of 9/11 is insupportable and won’t stand the test of time, I thought it might be apropos to establish a media “Honour” and “Dishonour” roll, recording those news organizations who have or haven’t done their job in reporting the story. The idea here is that, 10 or 15 years from now, when the great majority of people have cottoned-on to the fact that the government lied — just as the great majority now realize that about the Kennedy assassination — we’ll be able to look back and see which of them maintained the best traditions of journalism, and which were compliant or complicit.
This list is pretty much off the top of my head, and certainly subject to change, persuasion, and the wisdom of crowds. In other words, if you have suggestions for additions and subtractions, or moving an organization from one list to the other, let me know via the comments form. Please explain your reasons, and provide links to back them up when you can. Note that organizations can appear on both lists, and that individual columnists are excluded, as an organization may well maintain a columnist it disagrees with. We’re looking for institutional responsibility here. The exception is columnists, like Alexander Cockburn, who also have senior editorial responsibility, and thus are the institution, or part of it. Maybe I’ll start a category for just-columnists down the road.
As well, the fact that a newspaper or magazine or network is big and mainstream, and possibly even corporate-owned, doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be recognized when it does something right.
“Doing the job” is defined here as not swallowing the government line wholesale, remaining sceptical, reporting new evidence as it emerges, and investigating the facts where warranted. Or at least some of the above. “Dishonour” means credulity in the face of government explanations, ignoring or actively suppressing contrary evidence, deriding debate, failing to correct information that has been proven false, and various other forms of pernicious and/or bush-league behaviour.
So here’s the list for starters:
The 9/11 Media Honour Roll:
A Channel (Victoria, BC)
Report on Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth press conference
The British Broadcasting Corporation
The Power of Nightmares
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
The Fifth Estate, “The Unofficial Story”
Sunday Special Edition, “9/11: Facing the Fallout”
Channel One Russia
Showing of documentary Zero, followed by debate
The Copenhagen Post
Article on scientific study of nanothermite found in WTC residue
“Democracy Now!”
9/11 debate (Many Truthers regard Amy Goodman as a “left gatekeeper” — but she did run this debate.)
The Japan Times
[URL="http://search.japantimes.co.jp/mail/fl20080617zg.html"]Article on 9/11 Diet member Yukihisa Fujita
[/URL]
KBDI, Colorado Public Television
Showing of 9/11 Press for Truth and 9/11 Blueprint for Truth
KMPH FOX 26 (Fresno, Calif.)
Interview with Richard Gage
La Télé Libre
Interview with Cynthia McKinney and Niels Harrit
Maclean’s
“Hijacking the Truth on 9/11
RT
Various programs and reports
TV2 News (Denmark)
Interview with Danish Scientist Niels Harrit
Vanity Fair
Article on Loose Change
The Washington Times
“Explosive News”
Zoomer Radio (Toronto)
Interview with author of A Guide to 9/11 Whistleblowers
The 9/11 Media Dishonour Roll:

ABC News
Nightline, “Inside a 9/11 ‘Truther’ Convention”
British Broadcasting Corporation
[URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/6160775.stm"]“9/11: The Conspiracy Files”
[/URL]
Counterpunch
“The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts”
Daily Kos
“The Conspiracists”
The Huffington Post
Editor’s Note
The National Post
“A theory that just won’t die”
From back ofthebook.ca: “On being disappeared by the National Post”
From back ofthebook.ca: “Part II: On being disappeared by the National Post”

Popular Mechanics
“Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report” (Much of the info in this early piece has since been disproven, but PM has never run a correction.)
The Washington Post
“A leading Japanese politician espouses a 9/11 fantasy”

[Paul Rigby]

Counterpunch
“The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts”
Daily Kos
“The Conspiracists”
The Huffington Post
Editor’s Note

Gosh, what a surprise - no less than three representatives of the CIA's gatekeeping left.

Can't wait for the equivalent list of intellectuals etc.

[Mark Stapleton]

Counterpunch
“The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts”
Daily Kos
“The Conspiracists”
The Huffington Post
Editor’s Note

Gosh, what a surprise - no less than three representatives of the CIA's gatekeeping left.

Can't wait for the equivalent list of intellectuals etc.

Know the real enemy.

Clue: look beyond the CIA.

[David Guyatt]

Nice to see the "Beeb" make it on both the honour and dishonour roll. "Fair and balanced" reporting is such an important concept these days.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Nice to see the "Beeb" make it on both the honour and dishonour roll. "Fair and balanced" reporting is such an important concept these days.

Yup. Although I would add that the "Honour" vote goes to The Power of Nightmares, made by Adam Curtis.

Curtis is an auteur and is framed as such by BBC senior management. Whilst I'm glad that the Beeb funds Curtis' always intelligent and provocative films, the BBC's get out clause is precisely his auteur status.

Put simply, BBC management can argue that Curtis' films are "authored", representing an argument made by an individual, and therefore do not have to "fair and balanced". And that the BBC would in no way endorse Curtis' theories.

Curtis is the officially tolerated court jester. Or maverick.

Whereas the film on the "Dishonour" list, the risible "9/11: The Conspiracy Files", most definitely represents the BBC's official "fair and balanced" position, and like every film in that series was commissioned to debunk "conspiracy theories" and ridicule those who believe in them.