People are losing trust in mainstream media because of perceived biased coverage of the Gaza genocide. If that erosion of trust is real, why isn’t it prompting wider public re-examination of historical cover-ups and contested narratives — Watergate, Iran–Contra, Iraq, even shifting beliefs about who “beat” the Nazis? If we don’t question how past information was shaped, what’s the point of preserving evidence (e.g., Gaza genocide evidence recently removed from YouTube by Google)? Won’t this all be forgotten in a few years, the same way all those previous events are no longer discussed?
What’s stopping a sustained, constructive public inquiry into these parallels between past cover-ups and current information control? Where are good, constructive places to discuss these issues without falling into unproductive conspiracy spirals?
Because it’s ideologically useful for liberals to not:
thx for the read!
But you can bet we are going to keep discussing Tian’anmen Square instead of Pinochet’s dictatorship, Jeju Island massacre, Indonesian anti-communist purge, etc. It’s as if the average person believes anything so long as mainstream media says it.
What’s stopping a re-examination of historical cover-ups? I think you answer your own question when you say: where’s a good place to discuss this without going into conspiracy spirals? I mean that any time topics like this come up, people who are sincerely interested have to constantly militate against the “conspiracy theory” stigma. If you’re hit with that label, you’re persona non grata in academia, news media, and mainstream accounts on social media. That’s what stops people. The places to discuss conspiracy adjacent topics would be alternative platforms like this, until news media slowly come around on accepting anomalies many years after the fact: Jack Ruby did have mob ties; the Saudis did seem to fund hijackers, etc.
You know that Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Iraq are settled history at this point, right? They are no longer contested by serious people. A better example might be the JFK assassination & cover-up, or better yet, ongoing events like the astroturfed Mexican “gen-z revolution” or the fake Venezuelan “narco-terrorism” the US made up in an attempt to overthrow president Maduro.
Where are good, constructive places to discuss these issues without falling into unproductive conspiracy spirals?
The fediverse, which for the most part currently isn’t run by corporations or by NGOs funded by governments or corporations. There are also a few independent, non-corporate, non-NGO investigative reporting sources. I can name a few good ones if you like. People on lemmy.ml often post articles from them.
What’s stopping a sustained, constructive public inquiry into these parallels between past cover-ups and current information control?
There is no mechanism to promote the investigation. At best there will be queries like you made for the general, and social media reactions to specific events as they unfold.
A large chunk of government, politics, and press in the USA no longer exists. There are no authorities to turn too, now or later, regardless who gains power in Washington.
Most of the Anglosphere outside the USA is in a free fall too, a few years behind, maybe 20 years.
deleted by creator
Most of the past ones have been admitted and are out in the open. A few big ones like JFK and 9/11 remain.
Tucker Carlson did an Interesting 9/11 series recently though (no I don’t endorse Tucker Carlson as a whole)
1092: Tucker, The Man And His 9/11 Documentary
The guys at Knowledge Fight went over the first part of the documentary, and my takeaway was there’s nothing new, the primary person being interviewed is a well known liar, and there’s a lot dishonest claims being made and not a lot of evidence being given.
So what exactly do you think is so interesting about Tucker Carlson’s series? What new things did you learn about 9/11?
I searched that website for mentions of Gaza or Palestine and there seems to be no episode about it so I’m going to treat it as government propaganda.
What are you talking about? Why would something be government propaganda just because you can’t find mentions of Gaza or Palestine? It’s a podcast mostly about Alex Jones, not a news agency. Are you always like this?
If it never debunks any propaganda about Palesestine it’s government propaganda it’s literally that easy. Try reading the post you are in.
Alright, cool. So what did Tucker Carlson say that you thought was so interesting?
And I guess follow up question: was it all just government propaganda? Because I doubt he ever debunked any propaganda about Palestine.
Some fun facts about how the attackers were very obviously recruited by the CIA for a false flag. How they kept getting Saudi visas to the US even when one of the attackers stupidly locked himself out of the US.
Also yes Tucker has debunked a lot of Israeli propaganda, though just by repeating left wing points.
Starting around 38:30 in the podcast
Dan Friesen: So the argument is that the CIA was trying to recruit these hijackers and make them into informants. And that is a theory. It is not established. It is not proven. But they start to just treat it as if they have proven it.
Mark Rossini: You have the CIA then following one man and then two men all over the planet and then eventually even to America, right? Landing in Los Angeles, California, and you don’t tell the FBI.
Tucker Carlson: But why would the CIA want to hide the highly relevant and potentially dangerous fact that two known al-Qaeda terrorists had just landed in California? According to a recently released court filing, former White House counterterrorism star Richard Clark told government investigators that the quote: “CIA was running a false flag operation to recruit the hijackers.”
Richard Clark: When Cofer Black became the head of the counterterrorism center at CIA, he was aghast that they had no sources in Al-Qaeda. So he told me, I’m going to try to get sources in Al-Qaeda. I can understand them possibly saying we need to develop sources inside Al-Qaeda. When we do that, we can’t tell anybody about it.
Dan Friesen: So it’s important to pay attention to the way that information is used by people like Tucker and notice the little tweaks that they make in order to push their narratives. In this case, Tucker is setting up his clip of Richard Clark, and he says that Clark revealed that the CIA was engaged in a false flag to recruit these hijackers.
Then he plays the clip of Clark that does not say that. But instead is Clark saying that he could understand the intelligence folks trying to secretly turn the future hijackers into informants. He wasn’t saying that the CIA was doing this, but he understood how it was possible.
Yeah, one of the conspiracy theorists’ main tricks is equating proving that something is possible with proving that it’s true. Richard Clark saying that it’s possible that the CIA was trying to recruit the hijackers as informants is not the same thing as him saying that is what happened. But Tucker knows that to his audience, it is the same.
I don’t know man, maybe you need to work on your media literacy a little more. Or maybe just as a rule, you shouldn’t be taking anything Tucker Carlson says seriously.
