Burton's panel finds links to foreigners in Oklahoma blast (MIDDLE EASTERNERS IN OKC BOMBING)

INDIANAPOLIS STAR ^ | AUGUST 24, 2002 | JAMES PATTERSON

[aristeides]

I would be very interested to learn how the government transmits its marching orders to the media.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Some previous information is found here

Other Bad Dudes

[TomGuy]

I would be very interested to learn how the government transmits its marching orders to the media.

Purely supposition timeline:

Clinton picks up phone to Reno: "It was VWRC extremists, see!"
Reno: "Yes, sir." [Time elapse - 2 minutes]
Reno phones NYT chairman: "This is Reno. It was VWRC extremists, per The Boss." [Time elapse - 2 minutes]
Reno phones WP chairman: "This is Reno. It was VWRC extremists, per The Boss." [Time elapse - 2 minutes]
Reno phones NBC chairman: "This is Reno. It was VWRC extremists, per The Boss." [Time elapse - 2 minutes]
Reno phones CBS chairman: "This is Reno. It was VWRC extremists, per The Boss." [Time elapse - 2 minutes]
Reno phones ABC chairman: "This is Reno. It was VWRC extremists, per The Boss." [Time elapse - 2 minutes]
Time for "the word" to filter to news wires/reporters, estimated 4 to 12 minutes.

[Orangedog]

There is one other "inconvenient detail" that isn't mentioned enough regarding this subject. That is about the local TV coverage in the first few hours after the explosion. There were numerous times when they reported that other unexploded bombs had been found and that rescue efforts were being hampered while the bomb squad removed and defused these devices. Look on the net, there are videos of the local news coverage just after the explosion. If there was more than one bomb, then there had to have been others who were working with McVeigh in the hours and minutes before the building was attacked.

[bimbo]

[ It always puzzled me that the reports of un-exploded ordinance being removed from the wreckage quickly disappeared as well.]

[bimbo]

I would be very interested to learn how the government transmits its marching orders to the media. ... press releases.

[jwalsh07]

BTT

[aristeides]

Press releases may explain the transfer of information, but it doesn't explain why the media so quickly and so meekly go along.

[WhiteGuy]

The question that continues to bother me is.......

How did the reportedly large community of iraqis come to the US, and by who's authority.

[aristeides]

I keep reading here on FR that the Iraqis came here right after the Gulf War, on the watch of -- if not under the authority of -- Bush-41. I can't confirm from personal knowledge that this is true.

[Orangedog]

Has our population become so stupid or ignorant or apathetic that don't demand the federal investigators explain this??? If so, weap for the republic, for it will be doomed.

[Leper Messiah]

Good post. I really didnt expect this story to get such a positive spin. I guess this paper must have a "right wing" slant.

One thing regarding the initial reports of unexploded bombs within the building. I think it's pretty obvious that generally the "media" is incompetant. They are constantly changing the story on breaking news, and I think it's because they are so quick to run with speculation and rumor reported as facts.

This is not to say i believe the government line that it was all Timmy and his buddy's fault. I think it's obvious that the FBI had foreknowledge of this.

[aristeides]

I don't know about the unexploded bombs, but isn't the seismograph showing a serious secondary explosion pretty solidly sourced? (That may just as well reflect the nature of the bomb as the presence of other bombs. The single bombs at the East African embassies caused more severe aftershocks than the original explosions. But those were not ANFO bombs, and the aftershocks show that they were not.)

[TomGuy]

Skolnick Report link

[Fearless Flyers]

3. The extent to which the corruption of Bubba Rex permeated the law enforcement hierarchy trivializes the imagination. Many of the Clintonistas still infest the DOJ, FBI, etc. The Republicans are too compromised and cowardly to disinfect appropriately.

I agree limp wristed Republicans are more hinderence then help. But conervatives have to be careful not to appear as cheese heads.

[ForGod'sSake]

I would be very interested to learn how the government transmits its marching orders to the media.

Why do you assume this scenario? Could it not be just as easily the other way around? The Ministry of Information working out of the same play book as the Dims re-creates the "news" out of whole cloth. They have that ability, and you'll probably agree, a virtual monopoly on information/disinformation. And a network second to none.

And who amongst the alphabet agencies would buck the media. What bureaucracy wants the media spotlight shining in their closets? There ain't no future in it.

FGS

[aristeides]

If it's not the government, who coordinates the media so that they all tell the same story?

[ForGod'sSake]

If it's not the government, who coordinates the media so that they all tell the same story?

The Ministry of Information answers to no one. Is it inconceivable that THEY, not the gummint, could be setting the agenda? If the "government" is coordinating the media, why can't conservatives in government, or anywhere else for that matter, get fair coverage?

The media is a powerful entity in its own right; might they be giving marching orders of their own by establishing the parameters of a story? Not saying it's so necessarily, just looking for someone to convince me otherwise.

FGS

[aristeides]

I take it that, by "Ministry of Information," you are referring to some single body of people? Who? The editors of the New York Times?

[ForGod'sSake]

I take it that, by "Ministry of Information," you are referring to some single body of people? Who? The editors of the New York Times?

Look, I don't mean to sidetrack your post, so I'll drop it after this one. Just for the sake of argument, yes, the NYT editors would be a good starting point. For your consideration from one of our own FRN chapters:

Conspiracy and the Media

Dan Chavez
08/05/2002

The issue of whether or not a conscious conspiracy exists among the members of the "mainstream media" has exercised many minds among their opponents. How to address this topic needs to be clearly understood by those dedicated to reducing the power of the media. First, so we can clearly identify our target and second so they cannot smear and vilify us with one of their favorite terms of opprobrium, namely, "conspiracy theorist".

There are many of us who believe that a conscious conspiracy exists among the liberal media to advance a left-wing, pro-statist agenda. Despite the odium attached to the term, a conspiracy is merely an agreement between people to pursue a common goal or engage in certain actions, chosen in advance. Whatever the reason one believes there exists a conspiracy among the media it is best, for tactical reasons, to simply use these beliefs, whatever they may be, as a motivator to action rather than a position for debate. Reason being that exceptions may exist to any conspiracy theory and will undoubtedly be trotted out by the media. Plus we must not give our opponents any excuse to marginalize or weaken our cause by smear tactics.

It is true that the majority of journalists and editors in the "mainstream" media characterize themselves as Democrats. It is also true that in a hierarchical structure the values of those lower down in that structure will reflect echo or at the very least not be a threat to those higher up. For our purposes it is better to articulate our struggle as being a combat against those who share certain values and assumptions. This, by the way, will be entirely true.

One of the reasons for the power of the media is that they have been able to function as a conspiracy while yet being able to claim it does not. Not so much by argument as by ad hominum and vilification campaigns against those who were against them. Or, by simply ignoring them. When you have a group of people that share certain values and assumptions, like the media's editors and journalists do, you can predict with a certainty what their political slant and biases for or against certain issues will be. Add to this the structure of the media being a hierarchy where those above can weed out or deny advancement to those on the lower levels and you already have what to an outsider would appear a conscious conspiracy. But what is in reality a series of assumptions expressed by a group of people that takes on the appearance of unanimity. But, at the same time is something that can be denied as a conspiracy. So, the mainstream media has had the best of both worlds, namely, to be able to function as a conspiracy, albeit an unconscious one, and to be able to mock, denigrate and point up rare exceptions to their otherwise unanimity on most issues, when they are not otherwise ignoring their critics, which is most of the time.

Bernard Goldberg in his book "Bias" writes of network newscasters "Liberal bias is how they see the world" and " It just happens. News isn't just a collection of facts. It's also how reporters and editors see those facts, how they interpret them, and most important, what facts they think are newsworthy to begin with". These are the terms and the context within which the issues of a "conspiracy" within the "mainstream" media should best be articulated. If we can reduce their power and influence in an effective fashion then the opponents of the "mainstream" media will be well served no matter what their views on media "conspiracies" might be.

---

Read Dan's previous columns:

FGS