Discussion:
A Better Way to Think About Conspiracy Theories
(too old to reply)
Steve M. Galbraith
2021-03-02 21:14:02 UTC
Permalink
One of the best columnists in America, Ross Douthat, on conspiracy
thinking and how to distinguish between legitimate conspiracy views -
since conspiacies do occur - and illegitimate ones.

A key point about questioning the "official story":

"And this points to an excellent rule for anyone who looks at an official
narrative and thinks that something seems suspicious: In following your
suspicions, never leap to a malignant conspiracy to explain something that
can be explained by incompetence and self-protection first."

The rest here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/opinion/misinformation-conspiracy-theories.html
John Corbett
2021-03-03 04:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
One of the best columnists in America, Ross Douthat, on conspiracy
thinking and how to distinguish between legitimate conspiracy views -
since conspiacies do occur - and illegitimate ones.
"And this points to an excellent rule for anyone who looks at an official
narrative and thinks that something seems suspicious: In following your
suspicions, never leap to a malignant conspiracy to explain something that
can be explained by incompetence and self-protection first."
The rest here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/opinion/misinformation-conspiracy-theories.html
I couldn't agree more. I believe the biggest error in the entire handling
of the investigation was allowing Jackie to select who would do the
autopsy. The result was it was conducted by pathologists who were used to
doing autopsies on people who died of cancer or heart disease, not gunshot
wounds. They had no experience doing medico-legal autopsies which require
a special type of expertise. I don't blame those who decided to take the
body back to Washington because that was a prudent move from a security
standpoint. Once they got to Washington, there were plenty of qualified
forensic medical examiners in the DC area to do the job right. Had that
been done, it would have quashed some of the nonsense. Not all of it of
course, but it would have given the conspiracy hobbyists one less thing to
talk about.
Steve M. Galbraith
2021-03-04 02:18:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
One of the best columnists in America, Ross Douthat, on conspiracy
thinking and how to distinguish between legitimate conspiracy views -
since conspiacies do occur - and illegitimate ones.
"And this points to an excellent rule for anyone who looks at an official
narrative and thinks that something seems suspicious: In following your
suspicions, never leap to a malignant conspiracy to explain something that
can be explained by incompetence and self-protection first."
The rest here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/opinion/misinformation-conspiracy-theories.html
I couldn't agree more. I believe the biggest error in the entire handling
of the investigation was allowing Jackie to select who would do the
autopsy. The result was it was conducted by pathologists who were used to
doing autopsies on people who died of cancer or heart disease, not gunshot
wounds. They had no experience doing medico-legal autopsies which require
a special type of expertise. I don't blame those who decided to take the
body back to Washington because that was a prudent move from a security
standpoint. Once they got to Washington, there were plenty of qualified
forensic medical examiners in the DC area to do the job right. Had that
been done, it would have quashed some of the nonsense. Not all of it of
course, but it would have given the conspiracy hobbyists one less thing to
talk about.
Well, Finck was very well qualified in the area of "wound ballistics." He
testified that he had done hundreds of autopsies including ones where the
victim died of gunshots. Granted, he assisted the autopsy and maybe should
have been put in charge. Or had a larger role. But Jackie's wish to have
the autopsy done at Bethesda Naval Hospital meant that any autopsy doctor
would likely have little acquaintance with gunshot wounds.

Their biggest mistake was not dissecting that back wound. And Humes should
have called Perry during the autopsy and not the next day. Take away those
two errors and a lot of this nonsense would have been avoided.

Manchester has a great section on the chaos and confusion that ensued the
assassination. Nobody was thinking clearly, everyone was panicking and
confused and didn't know what was going on. Of course conspiracists will
just say they were all acting; they knew what happened - they were just
pretending to be confused. You know the routine.
John Corbett
2021-03-04 04:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
One of the best columnists in America, Ross Douthat, on conspiracy
thinking and how to distinguish between legitimate conspiracy views -
since conspiacies do occur - and illegitimate ones.
"And this points to an excellent rule for anyone who looks at an official
narrative and thinks that something seems suspicious: In following your
suspicions, never leap to a malignant conspiracy to explain something that
can be explained by incompetence and self-protection first."
The rest here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/opinion/misinformation-conspiracy-theories.html
I couldn't agree more. I believe the biggest error in the entire
handling of the investigation was allowing Jackie to select who would
do the autopsy. The result was it was conducted by pathologists who
were used to doing autopsies on people who died of cancer or heart
disease, not gunshot wounds. They had no experience doing medico-legal
autopsies which require a special type of expertise. I don't blame
those who decided to take the body back to Washington because that was
a prudent move from a security standpoint. Once they got to
Washington, there were plenty of qualified forensic medical examiners
in the DC area to do the job right. Had that been done, it would have
quashed some of the nonsense. Not all of it of course, but it would
have given the conspiracy hobbyists one less thing to talk about.
Well, Finck was very well qualified in the area of "wound ballistics."
He testified that he had done hundreds of autopsies including ones where
the victim died of gunshots. Granted, he assisted the autopsy and maybe
should have been put in charge. Or had a larger role. But Jackie's wish
to have the autopsy done at Bethesda Naval Hospital meant that any
autopsy doctor would likely have little acquaintance with gunshot
wounds.
Finck studied battlefield wounds which is not the same as a medico-legal
autopsy. The latter is a requirement for legally establishing cause of
death. That wasn't what Finck was doing in the autopsies he performed.
While the two are related, there are different requirements.

https://www.homeopathy360.com/2020/02/27/medico-legal-autopsy/#:~:text=Medico-legal%20autopsy:%20It%20is%20done%20in%20cases%20of,on%20embalmed%20dead%20bodies%20to%20enhance%20medical%20knowledge.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Their biggest mistake was not dissecting that back wound. And Humes should
have called Perry during the autopsy and not the next day. Take away those
two errors and a lot of this nonsense would have been avoided.
The problem was that since none of them had done a medico-legal autopsy,
they didn't know how important that was. A forensic medical examiner would
have known the importance of that and insisted it had to be done so as not
to jeopardize the prosecution because of a botched autopsy.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Manchester has a great section on the chaos and confusion that ensued the
assassination. Nobody was thinking clearly, everyone was panicking and
confused and didn't know what was going on. Of course conspiracists will
just say they were all acting; they knew what happened - they were just
pretending to be confused. You know the routine.
Even though it was an extraordinary circumstance, that was all the more
reason to follow well established proven procedures. When you make it up
as you go, you are more prone to make mistakes. JFK should have gotten the
same kind of autopsy that a John Doe shooting victim would have gotten.
Steve M. Galbraith
2021-03-04 17:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
One of the best columnists in America, Ross Douthat, on conspiracy
thinking and how to distinguish between legitimate conspiracy views -
since conspiacies do occur - and illegitimate ones.
"And this points to an excellent rule for anyone who looks at an official
narrative and thinks that something seems suspicious: In following your
suspicions, never leap to a malignant conspiracy to explain something that
can be explained by incompetence and self-protection first."
The rest here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/opinion/misinformation-conspiracy-theories.html
I couldn't agree more. I believe the biggest error in the entire
handling of the investigation was allowing Jackie to select who would
do the autopsy. The result was it was conducted by pathologists who
were used to doing autopsies on people who died of cancer or heart
disease, not gunshot wounds. They had no experience doing medico-legal
autopsies which require a special type of expertise. I don't blame
those who decided to take the body back to Washington because that was
a prudent move from a security standpoint. Once they got to
Washington, there were plenty of qualified forensic medical examiners
in the DC area to do the job right. Had that been done, it would have
quashed some of the nonsense. Not all of it of course, but it would
have given the conspiracy hobbyists one less thing to talk about.
Well, Finck was very well qualified in the area of "wound ballistics."
He testified that he had done hundreds of autopsies including ones where
the victim died of gunshots. Granted, he assisted the autopsy and maybe
should have been put in charge. Or had a larger role. But Jackie's wish
to have the autopsy done at Bethesda Naval Hospital meant that any
autopsy doctor would likely have little acquaintance with gunshot
wounds.
Finck studied battlefield wounds which is not the same as a medico-legal
autopsy. The latter is a requirement for legally establishing cause of
death. That wasn't what Finck was doing in the autopsies he performed.
While the two are related, there are different requirements.
https://www.homeopathy360.com/2020/02/27/medico-legal-autopsy/#:~:text=Medico-legal%20autopsy:%20It%20is%20done%20in%20cases%20of,on%20embalmed%20dead%20bodies%20to%20enhance%20medical%20knowledge.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Their biggest mistake was not dissecting that back wound. And Humes should
have called Perry during the autopsy and not the next day. Take away those
two errors and a lot of this nonsense would have been avoided.
The problem was that since none of them had done a medico-legal autopsy,
they didn't know how important that was. A forensic medical examiner would
have known the importance of that and insisted it had to be done so as not
to jeopardize the prosecution because of a botched autopsy.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Manchester has a great section on the chaos and confusion that ensued the
assassination. Nobody was thinking clearly, everyone was panicking and
confused and didn't know what was going on. Of course conspiracists will
just say they were all acting; they knew what happened - they were just
pretending to be confused. You know the routine.
Even though it was an extraordinary circumstance, that was all the more
reason to follow well established proven procedures. When you make it up
as you go, you are more prone to make mistakes. JFK should have gotten the
same kind of autopsy that a John Doe shooting victim would have gotten.
As you know, for lots of reasons the Kennedys simply didn't want and
wouldn't permit a full autopsy. Who was going to overrule them? Who had
the authority to do so? Kennedy was attorney general. LBJ? Katzenbach?
McNamara? I doubt that any military hospital - Bethesda or Walter Reed -
had the type of autopsy team that would have been best. There were no
established procedures to follow in such a situation. Not for a president.
They needed several days to go over things. Talk to the ER physicians,
view the films, talk to witnesses. But they were going to bury JFK in a
day. None of that could be done.
John Corbett
2021-03-05 02:09:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
One of the best columnists in America, Ross Douthat, on conspiracy
thinking and how to distinguish between legitimate conspiracy views -
since conspiacies do occur - and illegitimate ones.
"And this points to an excellent rule for anyone who looks at an official
narrative and thinks that something seems suspicious: In following your
suspicions, never leap to a malignant conspiracy to explain something that
can be explained by incompetence and self-protection first."
The rest here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/opinion/misinformation-conspiracy-theories.html
I couldn't agree more. I believe the biggest error in the entire
handling of the investigation was allowing Jackie to select who would
do the autopsy. The result was it was conducted by pathologists who
were used to doing autopsies on people who died of cancer or heart
disease, not gunshot wounds. They had no experience doing medico-legal
autopsies which require a special type of expertise. I don't blame
those who decided to take the body back to Washington because that was
a prudent move from a security standpoint. Once they got to
Washington, there were plenty of qualified forensic medical examiners
in the DC area to do the job right. Had that been done, it would have
quashed some of the nonsense. Not all of it of course, but it would
have given the conspiracy hobbyists one less thing to talk about.
Well, Finck was very well qualified in the area of "wound ballistics."
He testified that he had done hundreds of autopsies including ones where
the victim died of gunshots. Granted, he assisted the autopsy and maybe
should have been put in charge. Or had a larger role. But Jackie's wish
to have the autopsy done at Bethesda Naval Hospital meant that any
autopsy doctor would likely have little acquaintance with gunshot
wounds.
Finck studied battlefield wounds which is not the same as a medico-legal
autopsy. The latter is a requirement for legally establishing cause of
death. That wasn't what Finck was doing in the autopsies he performed.
While the two are related, there are different requirements.
https://www.homeopathy360.com/2020/02/27/medico-legal-autopsy/#:~:text=Medico-legal%20autopsy:%20It%20is%20done%20in%20cases%20of,on%20embalmed%20dead%20bodies%20to%20enhance%20medical%20knowledge.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Their biggest mistake was not dissecting that back wound. And Humes should
have called Perry during the autopsy and not the next day. Take away those
two errors and a lot of this nonsense would have been avoided.
The problem was that since none of them had done a medico-legal autopsy,
they didn't know how important that was. A forensic medical examiner would
have known the importance of that and insisted it had to be done so as not
to jeopardize the prosecution because of a botched autopsy.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Manchester has a great section on the chaos and confusion that ensued the
assassination. Nobody was thinking clearly, everyone was panicking and
confused and didn't know what was going on. Of course conspiracists will
just say they were all acting; they knew what happened - they were just
pretending to be confused. You know the routine.
Even though it was an extraordinary circumstance, that was all the more
reason to follow well established proven procedures. When you make it up
as you go, you are more prone to make mistakes. JFK should have gotten the
same kind of autopsy that a John Doe shooting victim would have gotten.
As you know, for lots of reasons the Kennedys simply didn't want and
wouldn't permit a full autopsy.
It shouldn't have been their call. As AG, RFK should have known why a full
autopsy was necessary and if he wasn't thinking correctly, somebody needed
to explain it to him. The justice of the peace in Dallas released the body
to the SS on the condition that Admiral Burkley stay with the body until a
full autopsy was completed to maintain chain of possession. I'm sure the
expectation was that a qualified medical examiner do a complete autopsy.
Had it been known they would do a half assed job of it, I'm betting the
Dallas authorities would have thought twice about letting the body go
under those circumstances. The autopsy that was done would probably have
been accepted by the court had the case gone to trial but it would have
opened up an avenue for the defense to challenge the legitimacy of the
autopsy and if the were successful in getting the autopsy thrown out,
prosecution would have been problematic.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Who was going to overrule them?
Somebody with some courage.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Who had
the authority to do so? Kennedy was attorney general. LBJ? Katzenbach?
McNamara?
RFK was head of the Justice Department. At that point, DOJ had no
jurisdiction. LBJ hadn't ordered the FBI to take over the investigation at
that point. It was still a state murder case and the body was released on
the condition that a proper medico-legal autopsy be performed.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
I doubt that any military hospital - Bethesda or Walter Reed -
had the type of autopsy team that would have been best.
There were plenty of qualified medical examiners in the DC area. Nothing
said it had to be done at a military hospital and in fact it shouldn't
have been.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
There were no
established procedures to follow in such a situation. Not for a president.
From a legal standpoint, it didn't matter who the victim was. It was a
state murder case and everything that would be done for a John Doe murder
should have been done for JFK. Had people just followed normal procedures
instead of thinking they needed to do something extraordinary, a much
better autopsy would have been performed.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
They needed several days to go over things. Talk to the ER physicians,
view the films, talk to witnesses. But they were going to bury JFK in a
day. None of that could be done.
They weren't going to bury him until Monday. Yes they wanted the body
available for the ceremonies, lying in state first at the White House for
dignataries and then the Capitol for the public but they had plenty of
time to do a proper autopsy. They just had the wrong people doing it.
Steve M. Galbraith
2021-03-05 18:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by John Corbett
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
One of the best columnists in America, Ross Douthat, on conspiracy
thinking and how to distinguish between legitimate conspiracy views -
since conspiacies do occur - and illegitimate ones.
"And this points to an excellent rule for anyone who looks at an official
narrative and thinks that something seems suspicious: In following your
suspicions, never leap to a malignant conspiracy to explain something that
can be explained by incompetence and self-protection first."
The rest here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/opinion/misinformation-conspiracy-theories.html
I couldn't agree more. I believe the biggest error in the entire
handling of the investigation was allowing Jackie to select who would
do the autopsy. The result was it was conducted by pathologists who
were used to doing autopsies on people who died of cancer or heart
disease, not gunshot wounds. They had no experience doing medico-legal
autopsies which require a special type of expertise. I don't blame
those who decided to take the body back to Washington because that was
a prudent move from a security standpoint. Once they got to
Washington, there were plenty of qualified forensic medical examiners
in the DC area to do the job right. Had that been done, it would have
quashed some of the nonsense. Not all of it of course, but it would
have given the conspiracy hobbyists one less thing to talk about.
Well, Finck was very well qualified in the area of "wound ballistics."
He testified that he had done hundreds of autopsies including ones where
the victim died of gunshots. Granted, he assisted the autopsy and maybe
should have been put in charge. Or had a larger role. But Jackie's wish
to have the autopsy done at Bethesda Naval Hospital meant that any
autopsy doctor would likely have little acquaintance with gunshot
wounds.
Finck studied battlefield wounds which is not the same as a medico-legal
autopsy. The latter is a requirement for legally establishing cause of
death. That wasn't what Finck was doing in the autopsies he performed.
While the two are related, there are different requirements.
https://www.homeopathy360.com/2020/02/27/medico-legal-autopsy/#:~:text=Medico-legal%20autopsy:%20It%20is%20done%20in%20cases%20of,on%20embalmed%20dead%20bodies%20to%20enhance%20medical%20knowledge.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Their biggest mistake was not dissecting that back wound. And Humes should
have called Perry during the autopsy and not the next day. Take away those
two errors and a lot of this nonsense would have been avoided.
The problem was that since none of them had done a medico-legal autopsy,
they didn't know how important that was. A forensic medical examiner would
have known the importance of that and insisted it had to be done so as not
to jeopardize the prosecution because of a botched autopsy.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Manchester has a great section on the chaos and confusion that ensued the
assassination. Nobody was thinking clearly, everyone was panicking and
confused and didn't know what was going on. Of course conspiracists will
just say they were all acting; they knew what happened - they were just
pretending to be confused. You know the routine.
Even though it was an extraordinary circumstance, that was all the more
reason to follow well established proven procedures. When you make it up
as you go, you are more prone to make mistakes. JFK should have gotten the
same kind of autopsy that a John Doe shooting victim would have gotten.
As you know, for lots of reasons the Kennedys simply didn't want and
wouldn't permit a full autopsy.
It shouldn't have been their call. As AG, RFK should have known why a full
autopsy was necessary and if he wasn't thinking correctly, somebody needed
to explain it to him. The justice of the peace in Dallas released the body
to the SS on the condition that Admiral Burkley stay with the body until a
full autopsy was completed to maintain chain of possession. I'm sure the
expectation was that a qualified medical examiner do a complete autopsy.
Had it been known they would do a half assed job of it, I'm betting the
Dallas authorities would have thought twice about letting the body go
under those circumstances. The autopsy that was done would probably have
been accepted by the court had the case gone to trial but it would have
opened up an avenue for the defense to challenge the legitimacy of the
autopsy and if the were successful in getting the autopsy thrown out,
prosecution would have been problematic.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Who was going to overrule them?
Somebody with some courage.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Who had
the authority to do so? Kennedy was attorney general. LBJ? Katzenbach?
McNamara?
RFK was head of the Justice Department. At that point, DOJ had no
jurisdiction. LBJ hadn't ordered the FBI to take over the investigation at
that point. It was still a state murder case and the body was released on
the condition that a proper medico-legal autopsy be performed.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
I doubt that any military hospital - Bethesda or Walter Reed -
had the type of autopsy team that would have been best.
There were plenty of qualified medical examiners in the DC area. Nothing
said it had to be done at a military hospital and in fact it shouldn't
have been.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
There were no
established procedures to follow in such a situation. Not for a president.
From a legal standpoint, it didn't matter who the victim was. It was a
state murder case and everything that would be done for a John Doe murder
should have been done for JFK. Had people just followed normal procedures
instead of thinking they needed to do something extraordinary, a much
better autopsy would have been performed.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
They needed several days to go over things. Talk to the ER physicians,
view the films, talk to witnesses. But they were going to bury JFK in a
day. None of that could be done.
They weren't going to bury him until Monday. Yes they wanted the body
available for the ceremonies, lying in state first at the White House for
dignataries and then the Capitol for the public but they had plenty of
time to do a proper autopsy. They just had the wrong people doing it.
But see, what we're really missing in all of this is that all of it was
deliberate, it was planned, it was part of the conspiracy. "They" knew
what they were doing. It wasn't lack of courage; it was a willful coverup.
"They" didn't want a full autopsy because their conspiracy would be
exposed. All of this confusion and ineptitude and disarray (back to
Douthat's point) - which is what we see going on - is really acting on
these people's part. "They" took JFK out of Dallas to fix the autopsy. It
wasn't the SS and Kennedy people wanting "their man" out of Dallas. It was
part of the conspiracy. A conspiracy that just involved a handful of
people (remember mainframetech's claim?)

This is the conspiracy mindset that we try to reason with. Futilely. You
cannot reason away unreasonable thinking. Particularly full fledged
conspiracy believers who have an almost religious belief in their
conspiracy. For them, everything indicates the conspiracy - there are no
innocent explanations for events.
ajohnstone
2021-03-07 23:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Just for further background reading, this interview

PART 1 https://www.salon.com/2021/02/20/conspiracy-theories--unmasked-from-winston-churchill-to-qanon-in-a-few-easy-steps/
PART 2 https://www.salon.com/2021/03/06/the-dark-truth-about-conspiracy-theories-theyre-everywhere-can-they-be-stopped/

Just on a purely personal note, i became a skeptic when as a schoolboy i
fell hook, line and sinker for Von Daniken's 'Chariot of the Gods', to
later discover his blatant distortions of facts and events and concluded
that they were not blunders but purposeful deceit.

Selective reading of only 'friendly' and 'trusted' sources reinforces a
closed mind.

As witnessed, my politics are far apart from those here (even your
resident 'dissident', Anthony Marsh, is a right-winger compared to me) yet
we can find common cause in understanding one particular incident, the
murder of JFK by LHO. It is one of basic analysis on how to accept and how
to reject particular evidence.

Do i deny conspiracies exist? No, not at all. But they are hard to
distinguish from the 'normal' practice of media manipulation and political
spin.
John Corbett
2021-03-08 19:10:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
Just for further background reading, this interview
PART 1 https://www.salon.com/2021/02/20/conspiracy-theories--unmasked-from-winston-churchill-to-qanon-in-a-few-easy-steps/
PART 2 https://www.salon.com/2021/03/06/the-dark-truth-about-conspiracy-theories-theyre-everywhere-can-they-be-stopped/
Just on a purely personal note, i became a skeptic when as a schoolboy i
fell hook, line and sinker for Von Daniken's 'Chariot of the Gods', to
later discover his blatant distortions of facts and events and concluded
that they were not blunders but purposeful deceit.
Selective reading of only 'friendly' and 'trusted' sources reinforces a
closed mind.
As witnessed, my politics are far apart from those here (even your
resident 'dissident', Anthony Marsh, is a right-winger compared to me) yet
we can find common cause in understanding one particular incident, the
murder of JFK by LHO. It is one of basic analysis on how to accept and how
to reject particular evidence.
Do i deny conspiracies exist? No, not at all. But they are hard to
distinguish from the 'normal' practice of media manipulation and political
spin.
One thing that I find particularly suspicious about our left wing media is
they all seem to be singing from the same hymnal. We can expect that they
would all cover the same stories but it is quite common for them to have
the same talking points and even use the same buzzwords. Not only are the
talking heads using the same words, but so are the left wing politicians
who are their guests. It's as if somebody at a central command post is
sending out daily memos telling people what talking points to drive home
and what words to do it with. It happens far too often to think it is just
coincidence. It is clearly a coordinated effort between the media and the
left wing politicians. I suspect it is the DNC which is pulling the
strings but since I'm not on the mailing list, I can't be sure who is
calling the shots.
ajohnstone
2021-03-08 22:35:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
It's as if somebody at a central command post is
sending out daily memos telling people what talking points to drive home
and what words to do it with. It happens far too often to think it is just
coincidence. It is clearly a coordinated effort between the media and the
left wing politicians. I suspect it is the DNC which is pulling the
strings but since I'm not on the mailing list, I can't be sure who is
calling the shots.
Hmmm???...articles discussing conspiracy theories are in fact a conspiracy
in themselves...a good one, that.

Reminds me of all those claims that it was the CIA who thought up the term
"conspiracy theory" to discredit those who challenged the Warren
Commission.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-the-cia-invented-the-term-conspiracy-theory-in-1967-with-memo-1035-960.960/

Now you think the German scholar interview is perhaps following a DNC
directive because a left-leaning news outlet shared his research. And, of
course, Fox, OANN and Newsmax never ever share in right-wing taking
points.

But historically when it comes to media manipulation of the news it has
been the left-wing who exposed it. Upton Sinclair's 'Brass Check', John
Keracher's 'The Head-Fixing Industry' to modern times with Chomsky and
MediaLens website.
John Corbett
2021-03-09 14:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by ajohnstone
Post by John Corbett
It's as if somebody at a central command post is
sending out daily memos telling people what talking points to drive home
and what words to do it with. It happens far too often to think it is just
coincidence. It is clearly a coordinated effort between the media and the
left wing politicians. I suspect it is the DNC which is pulling the
strings but since I'm not on the mailing list, I can't be sure who is
calling the shots.
Hmmm???...articles discussing conspiracy theories are in fact a conspiracy
in themselves...a good one, that.
Reminds me of all those claims that it was the CIA who thought up the term
"conspiracy theory" to discredit those who challenged the Warren
Commission.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-the-cia-invented-the-term-conspiracy-theory-in-1967-with-memo-1035-960.960/
Now you think the German scholar interview is perhaps following a DNC
directive because a left-leaning news outlet shared his research. And, of
course, Fox, OANN and Newsmax never ever share in right-wing taking
points.
But historically when it comes to media manipulation of the news it has
been the left-wing who exposed it. Upton Sinclair's 'Brass Check', John
Keracher's 'The Head-Fixing Industry' to modern times with Chomsky and
MediaLens website.
As you said in your previous post, there really are conspiracy's in this
world. Not all of them are imagined. When you hear the same buzzwords used
across numerous outlets, both electronic and print, and it happens over
and over again, it's hard to believe it is not a coordinated effort. Does
it happen with right wing media? Perhaps, but since there are so few it
wouldn't be as obvious as it is with the left wing media. We have Fox and
we have Newsmax on the right wing TV side. I've rarely watched Newsmax so
I really don't know what goes on there. I do know that there is a lot more
diversity of opinion at Fox. Not everyone on that channel is pro-Trump.
There establishment Republicans and there are a few genuineliberals. Juan
Williams and Donna Brazile just to name a few. Geraldo Rivera is a
Republican but not very conservative. More of a modern day Rockefeller
Republican. I don't see the same buzzwords and talking points be driven
home the way I see throughout the lineups of CNN and MSNBC.

Loading...