It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Main Stream Media Conspiracy Against... Conspiracy Theories

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   
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.




posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Interesting read.

I have often had the same thought. That any 'theory' contrary to the official story is almost immediately rebuked as paranoia without first considering the merits of the sorce or even attemping to verify the claim.

Also there is alot of disinformation out there that is often put into the same basket as fact. So if you dis-prove one single aspect of a 'theory' then the entire thing is bogus. This is not always the case, in fact I would argue that it is never the case.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 11:08 PM
link   
When you ask a person what they think when they hear Conspiracy they always say Theories.



new topics
 
0

log in

join