Tuesday, September 11, 2001

Why The Truth About 9/11 Is Censored By The Media

If the government's account of 9/11 is not accurate, wouldn't the media have been "all over it"?

Isn't the fact that most mainstream media sources don't spend much time covering these issues show that there's nothing there?


Self-Censorship by Journalists

Initially, there has been self-censorship by journalists.

Several months after 9/11, famed news anchor Dan Rather told the BBC that American reporters were practicing "a form of self-censorship":
"there was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tires around peoples' necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions.... And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism.

"What we are talking about here - whether one wants to recognise it or not, or call it by its proper name or not - is a form of self-censorship."

Indeed, journalists who have even asked innocuous questions about 9/11 have been threatened.

And, referring to another topic, a leading MSNBC news commentator has said that there is self-censorship in the American media, and that:

"You can rock the boat, but you can never say that the entire ocean is in trouble .... You cannot say: By the way, there's something wrong with our .... system".

As Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official Karen Kwiatkowski has written (at page 26):

"I have been told by reporters that they will not report their own insights or contrary evaluations of the official 9/11 story, because to question the government story about 9/11 is to question the very foundations of our entire modern belief system regarding our government, our country, and our way of life. To be charged with questioning these foundations is far more serious than being labeled a disgruntled conspiracy nut or anti-government traitor, or even being sidelined or marginalized within an academic, government service, or literary career. To question the official 9/11 story is simply and fundamentally revolutionary. In this way, of course, questioning the official story is also simply and fundamentally American."
Censorship by Higher-Ups

If journalists do want to speak out about 9/11, they also are subject to tremendous pressure by their editors or producers to kill the story.

The Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam, Seymour Hersh, said:
"All of the institutions we thought would protect us -- particularly the press, but also the military, the bureaucracy, the Congress -- they have failed. The courts . . . the jury's not in yet on the courts. So all the things that we expect would normally carry us through didn't. The biggest failure, I would argue, is the press, because that's the most glaring....

Q: What can be done to fix the (media) situation?

[Long pause] You'd have to fire or execute ninety percent of the editors and executives. You'd actually have to start promoting people from the newsrooms to be editors who you didn't think you could control. And they're not going to do that."

In fact many journalists are warning that the true story is not being reported. See this announcement and this talk.

And a series of interviews with award-winning journalists also documents censorship of certain stories by media editors and owners (and see these samples).

There are many reasons for censorship by media higher-ups. One is money.

The media has a strong monetary interest to avoid controversial topics in general. It has always been true that advertisers discourage stories which challenge corporate power. Indeed, a 2003 survey reveals that 35% of reporters and news executives themselves admitted that journalists avoid newsworthy stories if “the story would be embarrassing or damaging to the financial interests of a news organization’s owners or parent company.”

False flag terrorism is the most controversial topic there is. Exposure of the truth about 9/11 would challenge the government and the corporate status quo. Exposure of the truth of 9/11 would directly damage the bottom line of the war profiteers (see below). It would also damage the financial interests of the news organizations, since revelation of the truth would show how bad the mainstream media has been in covering real news, thus encouraging more people to get their news from other sources.

In addition, the Bush administration is allowing tremendous consolidation in ownership of the airwaves. The large media players stand to gain billions of dollars in profits if the administration continues to allow monopoly ownership of the airwaves by a handful of players. The media giants know who butters their bread. So there is a spoken or tactit agreement: if the media cover the administration in a favorable light, the MSM will continue to be the receiver of the government's goodies. And censoring the truth about 9/11 is a large part of covering the administration in a favorable light.

Drumming Up Support for War

In addition, the owners of American media companies have long actively played a part in drumming up support for war.

It is painfully obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that the large news outlets studiously avoided any real criticism of the government's claims in the run up to the Iraq war. It is painfully obvious that the large American media companies acted as lapdogs and stenographers for the government's war agenda.

Indeed, veteran reporter Bill Moyers criticized the corporate media for parroting the obviously false link between 9/11 and Iraq (and the false claims that Iraq possessed WMDs) which the administration made in the run up to the Iraq war, and concluded that the false information was not challenged because:

"the [mainstream] media had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President — no questions asked."
But this is nothing new. For example, the mainstream media also played footsie with the U.S. government right before Pearl Harbor. Specifically, a highly-praised historian has documented that the Army’s Chief of Staff informed the Washington bureau chiefs of the major newspapers and magazines of the impending Pearl Harbor attack BEFORE IT OCCURRED, and swore them to an oath of secrecy, which the media honored (page 361) . Also listen to this interview.

And an official summary of America's overthrow of the democratically-elected president of Iran in the 1950's states, "In cooperation with the Department of State, CIA had several articles planted in major American newspapers and magazines which, when reproduced in Iran, had the desired psychological effect in Iran and contributed to the war of nerves against Mossadeq." (page x)

In fact, the large media companies have drummed up support for all previous wars. For example, Hearst with the Spanish-American War. And the military-media alliance has continued without a break (as a highly-respected journalist says, "viewers may be taken aback to see the grotesque extent to which US presidents and American news media have jointly shouldered key propaganda chores for war launches during the last five decades.")

Indeed, the American press has always served the elites in disseminating their false justifications for war.


One of of the reasons is because the large media companies are owned by those who support the militarist agenda or even directly profit from war and terror (for example, NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the largest defense contractors in the world -- which directly profits from war, terrorism and chaos).

Another seems to be an unspoken rule that the media will not criticize the government's imperial war agenda.

9/11 was one of the main justifications for the Iraq war, as well as the entire American imperial war agenda. Revealing the truth about 9/11 would undermine the main reason for those wars, and therefore, is in direct conflict with the media giants' efforts to drum up support for war.

And the media support isn't just for war: it is also for conspiracies by the powerful. For example, a BBC documentary shows that

there was "a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by a group of right-wing American businessmen . . . . The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression."
Moreover, "the tycoons told General Butler the American people would accept the new government because they controlled all the newspapers." See also this book.

Have you ever heard of this conspiracy before? It was certainly a very large one. And if the conspirators controlled the newspapers then, how much worse is it today with media consolidation?

Censorship by the Government

Finally, as if the media's own interest in covering up things like 9/11 and in promoting war is not strong enough, the government has exerted tremendous pressure on the media to report things a certain way. Indeed, at times the government has thrown media owners and reporters in jail if they've been too critical. The media companies have already felt great pressure from the government to kill any real coverage of 9/11 other than the official story and attacking straw men.

For example, Dan Rather said, regarding American media, "What you have is a miniature version of what you have in totalitarian states".

Tom Brokaw said "all wars are based on propaganda".

And the head of CNN said:

"there was 'almost a patriotism police' after 9/11 and when the network showed [things critical of the administration's policies] it would get phone calls from advertisers and the administration and "big people in corporations were calling up and saying, 'You're being anti-American here.'"
Indeed, former military analyst and famed Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that the government has ordered the media not to cover 9/11, saying:
Ellsberg seemed hardly surprised that today's American mainstream broadcast media has so far failed to take [9/11 whistleblower Sibel] Edmonds up on her offer, despite the blockbuster nature of her allegations [which Ellsberg calls "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers"].

As Edmonds has also alluded, Ellsberg pointed to the New York Times, who "sat on the NSA spying story for over a year" when they "could have put it out before the 2004 election, which might have changed the outcome."

"There will be phone calls going out to the media saying 'don't even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security,'" he told us.

* * *

"I am confident that there is conversation inside the Government as to 'How do we deal with Sibel?'" contends Ellsberg. "The first line of defense is to ensure that she doesn't get into the media. I think any outlet that thought of using her materials would go to to the government and they would be told 'don't touch this . . . .'"

Of course, if the stick approach doesn't work, the government can always just pay off reporters to spread disinformation. Indeed, an expert on propaganda testified under oath during trial that the CIA employs THOUSANDS of reporters and OWNS its own media organizations (the expert has an impressive background). And famed Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein says the CIA has already bought and paid for many successful journalists. See also this New York Times piece, this essay by the Independent, this speech by one of the premier writers on journalism, and this and this roundup.

Indeed, in the final analysis, the main reason today that the media giants will not cover the truth about 9/11 is that we live in a fascist country (see point number 6). Fascism actually means the blending of the government and corporate interests, and the American government and mainstream media have in fact been blended together to an unprecedented degree.

See this book and the following 5-part interview for further information on 9/11 and the media: (Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4Part 5

Can We Win the Battle Against Censorship?

The cards are heavily stacked against the media covering the facts disproving the government's version of 9/11 or the many credible people who have questioned that story. We are up against tremendous forces working to censor those facts.

But we have the ability to outsmart the bad guys. We can "be the media" ourselves. We can be the movie-makers, the commentators, the reporters and writers. A thousand voices are louder than one voice with a megaphone.

We cannot leave governance to our "leaders", as "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" (Jefferson). Similarly, we cannot leave news to the corporate media.

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent"
- Thomas Jefferson

"To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men."
- Abraham Lincoln

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"Powerlessness and silence go together. We...should use our privileged positions not as a shelter from the world's reality, but as a platform from which to speak. A voice is a gift. It should be cherished and used."
– Margaret Atwood

"There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at points in history and creating a power that [nothing] cannot suppress."
- Howard Zinn (historian and 9/11 truth advocate)


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmm...seems to work now.

You've posted some excellent links and made some good observations!
Keep investigating 9/11!
We must demand a real criminal investigation and impeachment. It's the only way to move forward and get this country back before it is too late!

7:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

4/21/07 early A.M. the window front window of the truck (used) I just bought gets smashed. I walk to the store at 6:30 A.M. to get a few donuts. I notice my windshield is broken. I call the Police. Footprints on the hood were photographed. The punk obviously stood on the hood and kicked it in. I tell the police man who I think did it. He asked me why I am always the victim and says I deserved it. Why you ask? Because I pass out videos to google and sites like this one to visit.Tells me I need to assess my behavior lol. I give people places to go for the truth and good videos to watch and this clown implies the punk who creamed my windshield is the victim and I am the criminal.Yes Dane County deputy sherrif V.Murphy has forgotten his oath to uphold the constitution of the united states,and i am the criminal violating the laws of free speech :-) and the victim was not me. By the way my passing out cards with info on them and this clown smashing my window are not related,as he knows not my political leanings. Two years ago him and his buddy jumped me and he was hurt and his buddy slept for a few. Point is I get no equal protection under the law. Just like the reporters and others who speak up.Maybe a civil suit maybe not. I will call around and see,but am not counting on it. But I did make a complaint on this bozo.

7:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To add to the story, I notice the guy I figured did it is limping around on a pair of crutches. He hurt his ankle kicking my windshield in.Hope Deputy Dog doesn't arrest me for hurting his ankle with my windshield.

7:22 PM  
Blogger Hemptopia said...

The Media is the Mess

9:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the comment at the top was obviously made by one of ruperts robots, or perhaps a soldier in o'reilly's army of disinformation. the fact that it was made anonymously shows that he is an idiot. just like every other soldier of disinformation, all he has is character attacks and opinion. no facts to "set me straight" as they so often say. ahh, the balance was broken long ago, there is more stupidity today than ever before!

10:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The reason the media censor 9/11 is because it is under the control of Zionists, the same kind of people who were complicit in 9/11. Incase you haven't noticed they don't talk honestly about A LOT of things not just 9/11. Nor does the European, Australian or any other media talk about 9/11.

4:39 AM  
Blogger MRI Hero said...


7:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Censorship is becoming America's favorite past-time. The US gov't (and their corporate friends), already detain protesters, ban books like "America Deceived" from Amazon and Wikipedia, shut down Imus and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. Free Speech forever.
Last link (before Google Books caves to pressure and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)

3:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The CIA met with bin Laden in July of 2001 in an American Hospital in Dubai. Bin Laden's family also visited with him several times when he was there. Those were the same family members that were sitting with Pappy Bush on the morning of 9/11. Now, tell me again that they didn't know it was going to happen.
(All these facts can be substantiated, just google it.)

7:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wish I was reading this on the front page of the Washington Post.

10:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with most everything in this commentary. Thanks for assembling this material nicely.

However, I take exception to this choice of words (used elsewhere in the commentary also):

"[W]e cannot leave news to the corporate media."

Well, we certainly shouldn't leave news to the MSM. (Or to much of what passes for "alternate" media.) But why single out "corporate" media? Is the suggestion that if the media was socialist (i.e. government-owned), we'd get the real story?

In fact, it's the government that has perpetrated and hidden these monstrous deeds, and the professionalized media that's cooperated in the coverup. Would government ownership of the MSM make it less likely to assist the government?

Not only would that be preposterous on the face of it, but we actually have readily observed examples of what government-operated media does to counter that.

For example, the British government owns and runs the BBC. The same BBC that was obviously in the loop with the perpetrators of 9/11, as a confused BBC reporter prematurely announced that Bldg. 7 had collapsed as it loomed tall behind her.

The same BBC that went on to produce documentaries supposedly debunking 9/11 truth, heavily relying on 9/11 "experts" from Popular Mechanics.

Then there's the American CPB (supposedly a "private" corporation, which is merely self-serving bunk), which oversees PBS and NPR.

Well, we know what PBS's Nova series has done with 9/11. I don't listen to NPR, but I think I'd've heard about it if there was any 9/11 truthtelling there.

CBP also puts funds into "independent" Pacifica Radio, home of Amy Goodman and similarly left-gatekeeping show hosts.

Now, I live in the SF Bay Area and know about 9/11 presentations on local Pacifica-affiliate KPFA. However, that's strictly local and locally funded. None of the national Pacifica programming will touch the subject of 9/11 truth.

As you may have guessed, I'm a small-l libertarian and not a socialist. I'm getting tired of hearing 9/11 truth leftists blame "corporate media" for 9/11 gatekeeping when it's obviously the government that's driving the gatekeeping. And of the preposterous insinuation that if that same government just owned all the media, that kind of gatekeeping would somehow go away.

1:58 PM  
Blogger Caleb said...

I agree with r.p. mccosker's post about corporate media. The problem is that the government is allowed, by us, to work closely with corporate media. This should be illegal. The government should have little or no influence in corporate media or what defines America, etc. Its all the government, the media are merely being good Americans.

What we need to do is fix this orwellian language. They want to use fascist tactics, let them. Just call it what it is. Redefining certain words with a specific tone or style might force some sheep to think.

Take EVERYTHING this administration says and creatively manipulate their rhetoric, because that is all it is, just rhetoric, no substance. Have fun with it. You're smarter than them. We both know it.

But remember to respect our traditions and values, just cut off their arrogance and rhetorical ignorance from what WE represent. They don't speak for us, they're not even Americans. They're fascists. Their devotion and faith is not for our constitution. At least this part is obvious. Let us drive a wedge between their faith and our constitution. Let us clarify their position, for the public, regarding Freedom, Justice and Democracy and Power. They want Power for themselves more than they want Freedom, Justice or Democracy for you, etc. Be sharp, like a razor, to cut clearly through their lies. Don't embellish, just be real.

5:28 PM  
Blogger Danny S. said...

Concerning the "corporate media": the term is a shorthand for media that are owned by MAJOR corporations, the ones that are in cahoots with the government and have a vested interest, both financial and social, in not "rocking the boat". As has been pointed out, this blending of corporate and governmental power amounts to fascism in the literal sense.

Community-based newspapers or other independent local media (if they exist), even in the form of profit-making businesses which are legally "corporations", are not what is meant by "corporate" media. I think R. P. McCosker knows this, and is being disingenuous in pretending that the opposite of "corporate" media would be government-controlled "socialized" media. Surely, he knows that this is not the alternative that was ever mentioned or even implied.

3:13 AM  
Blogger Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? said...

The American media is by no means independent, it has obligations first and foremost to its advertisers because at the end of the day that is who pays the bills and keeps these companies afloat. Not to mention that the vast majority of media in the United States in controlled by very few corporations. So what we in fact have in this country is the illusion of free press and independent reporting. Any issue discussed in the media is often constrained to not be to radical or probing. I think this is a huge problem in our country, because at least in an authoritarian society dissenters are repressed and the lack of free speech is right there in the open and can become a rallying cry for change. In our country it is subverted, with the majority of the citizens believing that one has the ability to say one what feels and be heard. Until this is realized in American society I feel that little will change.


8:06 PM  
Blogger NG said...

Very true!

Sadly it is also true in the UK though American patriotism is not a factor here. Nevertheless, the mainstram media in Britain won't touch the issue either, except to rubbish "conspiracy theorists" and use straw man arguments.

I am currently working on a blog which analyses the BBC's conspriacy Files programme on 9/11. This will be ready in a couple of weeks.

Our analysis finds the BBC in breach of its Royal Charter obligations to accuracy, impartiality, and avoidance of subliminal conditioning.

The BBC Charter states:

(1) The BBC must do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.

(v) (l) (refraining from use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred)

In this programme they not only distorted and omitted evidence but perpetrated falsehoods. Is it conceiveable that their research was so bad that they were unaware they were doing this?

Contact me if you want more info on this:



6:49 AM  
Blogger _ said...

1. Nationalism & identify
Many people in many countries apparently integrate national exceptionalism into their own identity. Bad news that undermines ego can become personalized as threats. This creates bounds on news' interest in and capacity to deal with some societal problems that need effort. Conversely, there is little censorship of the flaws of other nations, especially in specific cases.


2. Cultural (Envy):
Writers often envy status and power powerful insiders (automatically calling it "news" when they are interviewed). News companies have in recent years been reluctant to report apparent law violations of high officials, especially if others that did so have been "controversialized". Some political scandals that don't affect people's lives are sensationalized more than policies that affect life and death of millions (e.g. smoking deaths). In this year, 2009, it seems two of the major pulitzer prizes in journalism were awarded for coverage of sex scandals.

3. Viewer Psychology
News becomes (in turns) entertainment and/or a voyeurism whereby both good news and morbid events can be used to excite or entrance. An "us them" nationalism may enter (as a market pressure or political insinuation) where the flattering positive social traits are heavily relegated to "us".

4. Money
Armstrong Williams was reportedly paid to support certain policies. Reporters that keep their reporting in the "safe middle", or that draw more viewers, can expect promotions. Do some advertisers implicitly signal pressure on news by the timing and volume of their purchases? We need the story of this with NPR at a California station.

5. Implicit career rewards

Some operatives have cycled between media and politics (Pat Buchannan, Tony Snow, informally Joe the plumber); Some news people moved from media to power; Some high profile political operatives run what appear superficial to be news (e.g. fox).

6. Workplace Norms and Professional glory

Workplace norms, prior precedent and educational flaws (Tuskegee) guide how much "muck raking" reporting can be published. Related, most or all professionals seek the approval of their colleagues. In some instances, perhaps for glory, stories have been entirely fabricated or falsely sourced (Blair NYT, Post, other papers, Pulitzer winner?)

7. Propaganda, etc
a) The government at times produces prepackaged news ("release") stories. b) The retired generals scandal, c) Intelligence operations have manipulated perceptions through fabricated narratives (Lynch, Tillman). d) reports of CNN training or intern program for army media staffers e) There are reports that the US military has multi-million dollar budget for public relations. My recollection of a statement of
Senator Gary Hart's statement is that there is no real prohibition on domestic propaganda. And it is hard to believe, given operation mockingbird, that the US would give up such a tool if other major nations still employ it.

8. Market Pressure
Most news organizations are under much pressure to turn a competitive profit, with the effect that easy stories such as echoing received claims become more common, whereas expensive investigation seems economically less viable. The tv show Firing Line has documentaries on such matters.

9. Leaks and manipulation
NYT's Judith Miller and WMD. WH selective leaks of a favorable part of an NIE, and non lead of other unfavorable parts. Reported discussions in white house about outing Valerie Plame or getting Joe Wilson. Some reporters were professionally smeared, destroyed and perhaps partially as an result, later committed suicide (Gary Webb).

10. Pressure
Producers may at times influence or strong arm news reporters (Amy Goodman); firing of Donahue during war.

See Public Policy News and Research:

6:46 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home