PDA

View Full Version : The "Is Amy Goodman CIA?" resolution at Pacifica



Paul Rigby
10-06-2009, 09:37 PM
A surprising dearth of material on the web on this not uninteresting issue. An exception follows. But note how Boal proceeds to avoid any substantial discussion of the resolution following the opening couple of paragraphs. That's Counterpunch for you. (By the way, who funds Counterpunch?...)

http://www.counterpunch.org/boal10062009.html


From Farce to Tragedy: The New Crisis at Pacifica

By Iain Boal

On September 17 the Governance Committee of the Pacifica National Board passed a resolution expressly designed to find out whether Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now! program is getting CIA funding through covert channels like the Ford Foundation for suppressing the “truth” about the 9/11 “over-up” The author of the resolution, Chris Condon, made it clear that he wrote a motion on funding disclosure specifically to find out "where the hell Amy Goodman's money is coming from".

Condon’s campaign for reelection to the KPFK Local Station Board in Los Angeles is endorsed by the current interim Executive Director of Pacifica and chair of the Pacifica National Board, Grace Aaron. Despite being thrown out of the Church of Scientology, Aaron still publicly identifies herself as “a follower of the teachings of L Ron Hubbard”.

Some background reading - and one video link - on the issue of Goodman, the Ford Foundation and the CIA:

http://www.educate-yourself.org/cn/amygoodmangatekeeper27aug05.shtml

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/fordfoundationciaandgatekeepers11oct05.shtml

http://baltimore.indymedia.org/usermedia/application/13/Amy_Goodman_flyer_06.10.04.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfKCBTOe_Kg

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/fordfoundationciaandgatekeepers11oct05.shtml

http://911review.com/denial/gatekeepers.html

http://www.williambowles.info/media/2005/gatekeepers.html

Peter Lemkin
10-07-2009, 05:57 AM
A surprising dearth of material on the web on this not uninteresting issue. An exception follows. But note how Boal proceeds to avoid any substantial discussion of the resolution following the opening couple of paragraphs. That's Counterpunch for you. (By the way, who funds Counterpunch?...)

http://www.counterpunch.org/boal10062009.html


From Farce to Tragedy: The New Crisis at Pacifica

By Iain Boal

On September 17 the Governance Committee of the Pacifica National Board passed a resolution expressly designed to find out whether Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now! program is getting CIA funding through covert channels like the Ford Foundation for suppressing the “truth” about the 9/11 “over-up” The author of the resolution, Chris Condon, made it clear that he wrote a motion on funding disclosure specifically to find out "where the hell Amy Goodman's money is coming from".

Condon’s campaign for reelection to the KPFK Local Station Board in Los Angeles is endorsed by the current interim Executive Director of Pacifica and chair of the Pacifica National Board, Grace Aaron. Despite being thrown out of the Church of Scientology, Aaron still publicly identifies herself as “a follower of the teachings of L Ron Hubbard”.

Some background reading - and one video link - on the issue of Goodman, the Ford Foundation and the CIA:

http://www.educate-yourself.org/cn/amygoodmangatekeeper27aug05.shtml

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/fordfoundationciaandgatekeepers11oct05.shtml

http://baltimore.indymedia.org/usermedia/application/13/Amy_Goodman_flyer_06.10.04.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfKCBTOe_Kg

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/fordfoundationciaandgatekeepers11oct05.shtml

http://911review.com/denial/gatekeepers.html

http://www.williambowles.info/media/2005/gatekeepers.html

I am a long-time member and listener to Pacifica stations WBAI, KPFK and others. I have long followed the struggles there to survive and internal battles - too complex to get into here/now. PN! and Amy Goodman started as part of WBAI. I know many have accused her of not touching certain topics [such as 9-11] and I'm as disappointed as most about these. My own hunch is that she either personally doesn't feel they are the result of conspiracies or that they would ruin her widespread approval as an alternative news show. I don't discount the possibility that funding issues could be the control mechanism, but have not seen the evidence, but welcome the debate. She has not flinched from hitting hard at the Empire, if only to an extent. Rather than eating our own, I'd suggest those who feel she has not gone far enough simply create their own versions that go further. I'm more worried that the interim head of Pacifica is an ex scientologist. She was just involved in the mass firing of the station manager and program director at WBAI and the slight less radical tone there. I think the funding for DN! should be looked into and I hope it is not coming from controlling strings-attached corporate entities. The debate itself might put a fire under Goodman - who just lost her mother yesterday and is not going to be on the show itself for a few days, due to this. Lou Hill who started Pacifica not long after WW2 was a visionary and the Pacifica network a gem - despite the constant internal struggles and begging for money [because they do not take any advertising]. They were responsible greatly for the ending of the Vietnam War, the struggle for Civil Rights and much more and the expose of much malfeasance in the government and corporate/banking sectors etc. I've had my own critique of Democracy Now for not going 'all the way'; but it goes much further than any other with a large audience and urge caution in not throwing out the baby with the bathwater here. Yes, they don't touch assassinations and false-flag ops. Maybe if they had more calls for doing so from their watcher base, they would. I sense it is caution, but if it is more, I'd be greatly saddened but that much the wiser, and it wouldn't be the first time. Given some of the items DN! has covered, I find it hard to believe they are backed by the DP bunch. If so, it is a VERY clever operation and not very limited modified hangout. WBAI is now split [as it was many years back] into two factions - those who want the more radical viewpoint and those who want a more left liberal voice (and greater listener ratings). At the same time corporate America wants to buy or steal the licenses. WBAI and KPFK both have the strongest signals in their respective areas, and are in the middle of the dial. Many attempts have been made by the Right to get those licenses. Care must be taken to not loose them in a fight over the stations and the network. I personally suspect the PTB would be more involved in that, than in day to day cares about what is covered. Listenership, while a thorn in their side is small and for the most part those who already believe in a very alternative viewpoint. There are currently elections going on to the Pacifica and local boards and one of several places for the currently out-of-power at WBAI to speak is www.wbixradio.org There are many others.

Pacifica's Mission Statement: Pacifica's Mission Statement

(a) To establish a Foundation organized and operated exclusively for educational purposes no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any member of the Foundation.

(b) To establish and operate for educational purposes, in such manner that the facilities involved shall be as nearly self-sustaining as possible, one or more radio broadcasting stations licensed by the Federal Communications Commission and subject in their operation to the regulatory actions of the Commission under the Communications Act of 1934, As Amended.

(c) In radio broadcasting operations to encourage and provide outlets for the creative skills and energies of the community; to conduct classes and workshops in the writing and producing of drama; to establish awards and scholarships for creative writing; to offer performance facilities to amateur instrumentalists, choral groups, orchestral groups and music students; and to promote and aid other creative activities which will serve the cultural welfare of the community.

(d) In radio broadcasting operations to engage in any activity that shall contribute to a lasting understanding between nations and between the individuals of all nations, races, creeds and colors; to gather and disseminate information on the causes of conflict between any and all of such groups; and through any and all means compatible with the purposes of this corporation to promote the study of political and economic problems and of the causes of religious, philosophical and racial antagonisms.

(e) In radio broadcasting operations to promote the full distribution of public information; to obtain access to sources of news not commonly brought together in the same medium; and to employ such varied sources in the public presentation of accurate, objective, comprehensive news on all matters vitally affecting the community.

NB! At this time DN! while born of Pacifica is independent.

David Guyatt
10-07-2009, 03:02 PM
The L Ron Hubbard connection is certainly worrying. Anyone can be a member of follower, but the more intelligent and connected tend to understand what it is that they are a part of.

And if they don't then their judgement and objectivity is badly flawed.

Paul Rigby
10-25-2009, 09:10 AM
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/the_new_pearl_harbor_a_debate. and goodman has also given significant time to the “loose change” filmmakers, http://www.democracynow.org/2006/9/11/exclusive_9_11_debate_loose_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_rare_joint_interview_noam_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.

Peter Lemkin
10-25-2009, 09:23 AM
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/the_new_pearl_harbor_a_debate. and goodman has also given significant time to the “loose change” filmmakers, http://www.democracynow.org/2006/9/11/exclusive_9_11_debate_loose_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_rare_joint_interview_noam_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! (http://www.archive.org/details/democracy_now_vid)], 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. :boxing:

Paul Rigby
10-25-2009, 10:40 AM
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.

You're quite right to raise the possibility, one which, I can assure, I considered, but was obliged to reject.

Goodman's behaviour over 9/11 is classic left-gatekeeping, in as much as it prioritises the most recent world-historic covert action for, primarily, avoidance, but also restrained discreditation. It's precisely how a previous generation of left-gatekeeper's handled the events of November 22, 1963. That generation - Chomsky and Zinn, most notably - now boasts the distinction of lining up against two of the most blatant inside-jobs in the bloody history of American Imperialism.


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! (http://www.archive.org/details/democracy_now_vid)], most give no aid nor comfort to the Empire - quite the opposite!

But that's the whole point, Pete, this is precisely the MO of the left-gatekeeper. Without credibility on almost everything else but the world-historic covert-op, they are without utility to the CIA etc.

Can I also suggest to you that your otherwise admirable regard for your friends and their opionions is blinding you to an unpleasant truth and leading you to a terrible inconsistency?

From your post number 79 in this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14636&st=75&start=75


"Anyone with reasonable access to the 911 evidence who does not conclude that a criminal conspiracy took place is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime" - a variant of Charles R. Drago's famous statement on the JFK Assassination.

So what’s Amy’s excuse for her reticence, Pete, which you proceed to concede?


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. :boxing:

You may well have a point about the origin of the debate, I don't know. It may even be the purpose of the debate to destroy Pacifica in toto. But that is a different issue from Goodman, and should be considered on its merits. It is more likely, in that case, that, say, the Agency is seeking to burn Pacifica using one of its own gatekeepers as kindling. Now that would make a great deal of sense, and boast solid precedent. After all, the CIA destroyed its own bridges to the post-WWII NCL in the 1960s.

The snake must periodically shed its skin.

Paul Rigby
10-25-2009, 01:35 PM
I can’t stress enough how routine is the creation by “the other level of government” – in Peter Shore’s felicitous phrase – of straw men (and women – look at Palin), pseudo-oppositions etc. These projects range from the utterly catastrophic (Hitler) to the humorous (Noam Chomsky, who’s so painfully unconvincing as to invite laughter), from the creation of intellectual secret policemen (the latter) to fully fledged exterminatory monsters (the former). Only very occasionally do we get a glimpse in public prints of this process at work, both overseas and domestically. Here’s one such rare example:

Smallweed’s column, untitle, The Guardian, Saturday, 22 June 1996, p.24:


By way of contrast, morale has never been higher round at the offices of Conservative 2000, John Redwood’s mildly anti-European brains trust, although we detect the hand of the Foreign Office in the recent events that have helped buoy the Vulcans. All those ambassadors and emissaries lining up to pay their respects – Argentina has called, Australia and France are expected – look suspiciously like part of that classic FO shuffle known as building up a moderate, acceptable version of the enemy. There was the SDLP in Northern Ireland and there was, famously, Bishop Abel Muzorewa, PM of Rhodesia’s transitional government and Britain’s great black anti-Marxist hope. In News From Nowhere (Hamish Hamilton, 1986), David Caute’s hero Richard Stern covers the Zimbabwe elections in early 1980 for the Times. His bosses are assured that Stern’s despatches are off track, tipping Robert Mugabe as election favourite; “the bishop” is the main man. The Times resolves to sack Stern. At last glance, RM was still i/c in Zim, and the bishop, presumably, has returned to bishoping. Not an encouraging long-term career outlook for JR.

How prophetic and accurate this piece proved, though I can’t help observing that four days later, the FO succeeded in placing a long, characteristically childish piece from one John Redwood in the pages of …The Guardian (“The Crowning Glory,” 26 June 1996, p.19).

Paul Rigby
10-25-2009, 01:38 PM
http://www.lust-for-life.org/Lust-For-Life/Conspiracy_Theory/ImageFiles/left_gatekeepers.gif

Paul Rigby
10-26-2009, 08:00 PM
The resident 24/7 Langley rebuttal unit has made a compelling intervention at the Education Forum:


Once again the "truthers" are giving Amy Goodman grief, it seems some of them at Pacifica want to silence or at least intimidate her just because she doesn't believe in their theories regarding 9/11. Perhaps not coincidentally they cut funding for her show and changed its airtime.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12763&st=30&start=30

In the words of that venerated CIA shill, Gerald Posner, “Case Closed.”

PS Anyone encountered that most elusive of creatures, to wit, Amy Goodman’s “theories regarding 9/11”? Thought not. Back, then, to the rather more productive sport of unicorn-hunting.