![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/04\/The-worst-part-of-censorship.jpg\" "\\"The")
<\/a>In the wake of the Sandy Hook School shooting public incredulity with the official version of events led to numerous speculations on what really happened. In short order corporate media marshalled pundits to disparage such alternative interpretations as \u201cconspiracy theories\u201d and the work of deranged and even malevolent Sandy Hook \u201ctruthers.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n The now-prevalent phenomenon where only the narratives authorized by law enforcement and government authorities are worthy of serious consideration suggests the unmistakable extent to which public discourse has declined. In such an ideational system journalists and academics are expected to either fall silent or perform the rearguard action of deflecting criticism from the state.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n Events such as Aurora or Sandy Hook have profuse informational gaps and a multitude of questions authorities have not begun to adequately address. Regardless of political stripe journalists and academics especially should be instinctively distrustful of such momentous incidents. Unfortunately many put short term interests of preserving reputation and livelihood above the obligatory search for truth.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n Today\u2019s project of policing the public sphere for unorthodox thoughts is a form of stealth authoritarianism that combines the weight of academic or journalistic expertise with a phony liberalism (or conservatism) to confirm the often unexamined perspectives of a specific political constituency. Such a technique is most readily employed against the apparently irrational ideas, beliefs and practices of a foreign other. In this regard \u201cconspiracy theorists\u201d and \u201ctruthers\u201d typically play the \u201cstraw man\u201d role.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n For example, a recent piece by Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan exhibits anxiety over major media\u2019s attention toward individuals critical of what authorities have told them to believe about Sandy Hook.[1] Nyhan is fearful that research into the Newtown massacre contradicting the government\u2019s official narrative\u2014what he emphatically terms \u201cconspiracy mongering\u201d and \u201cobscure myths\u201d\u2013may be given a platform by more \u201cprominent advocates\u201d from the political realm. From here the dangerous notions could gain the support of the unenlightened\u2013\u201ccredulous believers\u201d and \u201cnew adherents who would not otherwise have been exposed to or persuaded by false claims.\u201d Such verboten ideas, Nyhan argues, should instead be allowed to \u201cwither and die.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n The problem with this stance is that it consciously paves the way for the official false claims and myths that powerful political entities and corporate news and entertainment media are capable of forcing upon the public mind and collective memory, be they Osama bin Laden masterminding the 9\/11 attacks, babies being thrown from incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals, or North Vietnamese forces firing the first shots in the Vietnam War. Such a position is not unusual from a palace court intellectual; whether it is morally sound and faithful to the liberal tenet of speaking truth to power is a matter for another day.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n In reviewing other articles of those using this form of defamatory innuendo toward the Sandy Hook truth community I encountered numerous poorly reasoned arguments and claims that could not withstand serious scrutiny and amounted to a bulwark for the official narrative\u2013indeed, arguments most appealing to those with a dangerously unexamined faith in state power and lacking the inclination to consider alternative perspectives or investigate the event for themselves.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n This prompted me to contact several notable \u201cconspiracy theory\u201d decriers and request an interview with each of them. Instead of mere name-calling, I remain sincerely interested in better understanding why such apparently intelligent individuals have come to arrive at their conclusions and become the self-appointed guardians of legitimate public exchange. I thus set about assembling a set of questions on a wide array of \u201cconspiracy\u201d-related issues and phenomena.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n I figured I would begin by reaching out in a collegial manner to Professor Nyhan himself. \u201cSorry, not interested,\u201d he replied, rather tersely. I next contacted Ben Smith and C J Lotz, staff writers at the popular liberal website Buzzfeed.com, who wrote a piece remarkably similar to Dr. Nyhan\u2019s titled, \u201cSandy Hook Conspiracy Theories Edge Toward the Mainstream.\u201d[2] Smith and Lotz never responded to my emails.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n Undeterred, I contacted the operators of the well-known liberal \u201cfact check\u201d website Snopes.com. \u201cI\u2019m sorry, I\u2019m afraid we just can\u2019t,\u201d Barbara Mikkelson replied. \u201cI fear this is the downside of having a small operation.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n Next I dropped Salon.com political writer<\/strong><\/span><\/a> and ThinkProgress assistant editor<\/strong><\/span><\/a> Alex Seitz-Wald a line. The youthful Seitz-Wald prides himself as being one of today\u2019s foremost \u201ctruth\u201d skeptics. Since early January he has written a series of articles generally disparaging Sandy Hook researchers. \u201cI\u2019m writing one more story on this,\u201d he said, \u201cbut really not interested in getting back into this subject or enduring more hate mail.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n I moved on to career anti-conspiracist and former High Times<\/em> editor John Foster \u201cChip\u201d Berlet. Calling himself a progressive and champion of liberal democracy, Mr. Berlet wrote profusely on the resurgence of the so-called \u201cnew right\u201d throughout the 1990s.[3] \u201cI do not spend time with people promoting crackpot conspiracy theories,\u201d he replied, somewhat peevishly. \u201cIt is annoying, counterproductive, and gives me a headache. Nevertheless, I support your First Amendment right to waste bandwidth and electricity.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n Just when I was about to give up hope Jonathan Kay, editor at Canada\u2019s National Post<\/em> and author of Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America\u2019s Conspiracist Underground <\/em>[4] responded favorably to my interview request. \u201cSure,\u201d he said, much to my delight. Yet when I provided Kay with the questions he balked. \u201cJust about all the answers to these questions are in my book,\u201d he replied. I countered that very few of the questions were actually addressed in the book. \u201cI get the sense that my perspective wouldn\u2019t really be that meaningful to you. I\u2019m going to pass on this.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n In the end while skilled at defending the varied machinations of our out-of-control police state by helping to confirm their immediate audiences\u2019 prejudices, none of the foremost conspiracy cynics and debunkers opted to have a dialogue\u2013one where they would likely be compelled to interrogate their own claims and assumptions.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n Could it be that what these commentators desire in lieu of dialogue is a one-way transmission of their<\/em> ideas devoid of critique or interpretation\u2013one where the pursuit of \u201ctruth\u201d itself is caricatured as a fool\u2019s errand? If liberalism is based in part on a free and open exchange perhaps some of the foremost figures and media outlets touting themselves as progressive and liberal, and purporting to preserve and defend rational discourse, really aren\u2019t so open-minded after all.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n The following are the questions I was hoping my would-be interlocutors would address.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n Notes<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n [1] Brendan Nyhan, \u201cBoosting the Sandy Hook Truther Myt<\/strong><\/span>h<\/a>,\u201d Columbia Journalism Review<\/em>, January 22, 2013. Dr. Nyhan speaks dismissively of this author yet it is difficult to find a conventional article addressing independent Sandy Hook analysis that does not. I chose this piece to aid in analyzing its argument and a specific sociocultural tendency rather than its author. CJR seeks \u201cto encourage excellence in journalism in the service of a free society\u201d and its \u201cmajor funders\u201d include George Soros\u2019 Open Society Foundations and the Rockefeller Family Fund.<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n