It's an interesting read regardless of the partisan host site.
The
Conspiracy Theories essay uses some of our more recent hot topics
(journalist payola, Bush's debate bulge, and voting irregularities) as examples of demonstratably significant "stories" that the mainstream media
chooses to editorialize and pass judgement on via burying
or merely dismissing as a "conspiracy theory."
I object to the conspiracy frame for two reasons. First of all, it is an ad hominem argument, nothing but name calling. But secondly, and
perhaps more importantly, it degrades the whole concept of unlawful combinations. It effectively nullifies our communal ability to recognize the very
real dangers of a concentration of wealth and power - even though our greatest presidents have foreseen and warned against just that. In Dwight
Eisenhower's words, "beware of the military-industrial complex." Was Dwight a conspiracy nut?
The very word "conspiracy" is selected because it conjures up visions of paranoia, the political version of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Other,
less loaded words that could be used are, for instance, MONOPOLY. PRICE FIXING. GOUGING. WAR PROFITEERING. RIGGING.
Talk about lone gunmen and people's eyes glaze over, because whatever happened to John Kennedy is unknowable.
But if we talk about what happens in boardrooms, I don't think the idea of collusion, of a mindset, of an agenda, is so preposterous. It's all a
question of context.
It's actually ironic that the narrative driven media even makes sense given it's presumption that everything is an innocent little coincidence, a
series of unrelated factiods, that there can be no "intelligent design" behind a Halliburton contract or Iraqi invasion or Dean "implosion" or
anything for that matter.