Why does the media cover conspiracy theories involving Democrats, and theories

[Tony_FLADEM]

involving Republicans get ignored?

The media is covering the conspiracy theory that Obama was not born in this country. How come theories involving Republicans, i.e. LIHOP, foul play with Paul Wellstone's plane crash, The 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged, get mostly ignored by the media.

There might be some truth to our "conspiracy theories".

[slackmaster]

1. Troofer conspiracy theories are every bit as lame as Birfer conspiracy theories

A pox on all their houses.

[redqueen]

3. Have any conspiracy theories ever turned out to be correct? (nt)

[slackmaster]

4. A conspiracy theory can never be proved or disproved

Adherents react to contradictory information by either expanding the scope of the conspiracy, or shrinking it.

[EOTE]

55. Plenty of "conspiracy theories" have been proven over time.

For you to pretend as if they haven't shows that you are far from an authority on this matter.

[arcadian]

6. Yes, many.

Iran/Contra and CIA drug dealing for example.

[redqueen]

8. Yep.

Thanks. I figured given his mushy response there was no point discussing it further. :P

[slackmaster]

12. That was just a scandal - An accusation that got investigated and turned out to be true

I think of a conspiracy theory as an accusation that gets repeated over a period of years and never gets a proper hearing due to lack of evidence.

For example, accusations that the Republican Party has stolen elections by clever manipulation of electronic voting machines.

Nobody has ever come up with credible evidence that such a thing has happened. It's beyond dispute that some of the machines are very insecure and even vulnerable to deliberate tampering, but not one person has come forward with credible evidence that actual tampering of such machines has ever been employed to change the outcome of a live election.

Diebold conspiracy theorists have dealt with this by simultaneously involving tens of thousands of precinct workers and election officials in a highly organized and orchestrated effort; and by reducing the scope to a handful of evil and corrupt technical geniuses.

[Echo In Light]

14. "Nobody has ever come up with credible evidence that such a thing has happened"

No, that isn't true. There's miles of well sourced, credible data, but since it was never presented in ANY mainstream outlet, the crimes, strategic to enabling right-wing elements of the corporate/state nexus to carry out the phony "war," remain a "CT" in the minds of most.

If you're actually interested in reading about it (and I find that most who denounce "CTs" in general aren't) I'd recommend starting w/professor Mark Crispin Miller.

[slackmaster]

15. Thank you for illustrating my point by expanding the conspiracy

:hi:

[Echo In Light]

18. I'm not "expanding" it, you're ignoring very real data by choice.

[slackmaster]

19. You just expanded the conspiracy AGAIN, and ignored another logical explanation for my position

By adding me to the Conspiracy, and disregarding the possibility that I have seen the same "evidence" that you have and come to a different set of conclusions.

[redqueen]

25. So a conspiracy theory can never be correct,

because you define it as something that never gets sorted out?

How convenient.

[slackmaster]

26. No, a conspiracy theory is IMO by definition something that never gets proved or disproved

Once it's proved or disproved, it ceases to be a theory. It becomes either a fact, or an erroneous perception in the past that people have moved on from.

K&U

:kick:

[redqueen]

28. So the Iran Contra CIA connection... do you deny it started as a CT?

Which was later proven to be correct?

[slackmaster]

30. Yes. It was an accusation that led to an investigation that led to the truth coming out

Nobody disputes it any more. It was a scandal that people correctly identified and dealt with.

[redqueen]

32. It was a conspiracy theory to begin with.

Sorry you're so invested in your dogma about CTs to acknowledge that fact.

[slackmaster]

34. You're trying to shoe-horn it into the same category as Birfers, Troofers, and Diebolders

History refers to it as "the Iran-Contra scandal" or "Iran-Contra affair", not the "Iran-Contra conspiracy".

There was never an effort to debunk Iran-Contra. Of course there were denials and dismissals by people who turned out to be involved, but it was never subjected to scrutiny by skeptics in the way the Troofer stuff has been.

[redqueen]

38. CTs are CTs... some are idiotic... some are not.

I'm not shoehorning anything.

[slackmaster]

39. Birfers don't deserve the same standing as people who blew the whistle on Iran-Contra

That's all.

[redqueen]

40. Neither do flat-earthers, or hollow-earthers... or many others.

That doesn't change the fact that soem CTs are actually realistic, and many have been eventually proven to be correct.

[slackmaster]

48. The only people I recall referring to the I/C whistle-blowers as "CTers" were some of the accused

Once you are proved right, you are beyond doubt a whistle-blower (and were never really a conspiracy theorist). Conspiracy theorists are not defined by people who they are in the process of ratting out.

A conspiracy theorist clings to an accusation in the absence of a credible body of evidence to support it, and even in the face of contradictory evidence.

[redqueen]

51. You can make up your own definitions if you wish. (nt)

[slackmaster]

52. So can you

It's all a matter of perception. I see Iran-Contra as the work of a massively corrupt branch of an otherwise legitimate government, not the workings of a secret society or shadow government.

[redqueen]

54. Conspiracy theories necessarily involve

a secret society or shadow government?

Man, you really have narrowed that definition.

[slackmaster]

56. I didn't say necessarily, but they typically do

Like the Birfer and Troofer theories.

[arcadian]

43. There are many true occurances which sound like conspiracy theories though.

Just as there are many conspiracy theories that have factual events surrounding them. MKULTRA and remote viewing are not denied yet mention them and people think you are some kind of whackaloon. Can you say that you are %100 certain what happned to JFK or on 9/11?

[slackmaster]

49. I find the single-bullet explantion to be credible

It's supported by physical evidence and computer re-creations of the shooting.

I'm quite sure the government did not bring down the twin towers or WTC 7 with explosive charges.

[arcadian]

42. You characterize Iran/Contra as "just a scandal"

What an odd view of history you have.

[slackmaster]

50. It was a major scandal. I'd even call it a major conspiracy.

But that doesn't make the people who brought it to light "conspiracy theorists". They were whistle blowers.

[redqueen]

2. Because they're involved in manipulating perception.

This has been going on for decades. It saddens me how many (even on the left) refuse to see it.

[Echo In Light]

5. Michael Parenti: Conspiracy Phobia On The Left

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5676781

[juno jones]

46. Thank you for the link to that dicussion.

I must have missed it the first time around.

What is that old quote about the best trick of the devil is that he convinces you he doesn't exist?

And you quoted Harlan Ellison...:loveya:

[Blue For You]

7. Simple, Republican lunacy against Dems is more entertaining.

[fascisthunter]

9. ding ding ding... because the corporate media protects those who support their agenda

making money. Republicans do so much more than the dems do. The media is a pay to play biased propaganda machine. There is no free speech nor is there a FOurth Estate anymore. Journalism is dead in the mainstream media.

[Echo In Light]

10. And this is why the Right admits that they created the "liberal media" myth

[fascisthunter]

17. the right wing uses projection all the time

blame the victim first and throw off your audience just enough to avoid exposure before they even know the full story.

[slackmaster]

13. Thanks for illustrating my point by expanding Troofer theories to include the corporate media

You are partly right - The corporate media does make decisions based on how to make the most money, but they are politically agnostic. They support the wacky right when they think it will be profitable, and they support the wacky left when that seems like the best business strategy.

[Echo In Light]

16. That postulation fails on this level: if it were based on business alone, there wouldn't be such....

...uniformity of position, view, and rightward propaganda.

This is a classic example of the perceptive divide among those who, say, more or less align themselves w/Leftist politics: the business/professional class almost always decries the notion of criminal collusion (since they too enjoy and exalt similar business systems and attitudes), while those not moving within those same social/professional circles usually don't have those particular blinders on as they're not subject to the same inducements.

The notion that extremely wealthy, affluent people, and the various orgs, businesses and systems they're beholden to somehow don't 'conspire' among their own ilk to ensure their aims and retain their positions of power is just silly. Of course they conspire.

[slackmaster]

20. You see a conspiracy favoring the right

I see a pot calling a kettle black.

[Echo In Light]

23. Quote from Bill Kristol:

"I admit it -- the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
William Kristol, as reported by the New Yorker, 5/22/95

What Liberal Media?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030224/alterman2

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447

http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html

There's a lot of info on the subject.

[fascisthunter]

27. BAM

nice find

[redqueen]

29. Has that ever been an OP?

Wish I could rec this post.

[fascisthunter]

22. so well explained

thank you for that. I couldn't read the reply to my post, but you did well in explaining the situation much better than I could.

[G_j]

35. politically agnostic?

can you back that up?

[slackmaster]

36. I've stated a null hypothesis

Your job is to prove otherwise.

[G_j]

41. whatever

I don't have time,
but I don't believe that for one second.

[slackmaster]

53. It probably depends on what channel you choose to watch and what time you watch

By the time I turn on the TV, on the rare occasions I watch something other than documentaries I see a parade of witty, astute liberals - Olberman, Colbert, Maddow, Stewart. I rarely watch Fox, but if I did I'd probably think the media was dominated by Dobbs, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. I can't believe that a truly conservative-dominated media would allow a Rachel Maddow to be on the air during prime time.

[Echo In Light]

57. On the contrary, any efficient propaganda system would of course seek to create illusory perceptions

If it's controlled by an appearance of an iron hand, than it's easy to call it by name. The idea is to have an appearance of choice, much like the basis of the two Name Brand political parties; it establishes an acceptable framework per the desires/aims of centralized power - allowing for just enough criticism that doesn't actually pose any substantial threat to biz as usual, but over time indoctrinates the public mind into thinking it's all open and free, and it's merely happenstance and prevailing ideology (within a random, social vacuum free from external influences) that determines why most progressive/leftist views are either absent from mainstream discourse, or smugly denounced when espoused.

This likewise plays a qualifying role re mainstream perceptions to what are denounced by vested interests, and those who similarly abide and exalt those social structures/belief systems, as "conspiracy theories." Most CTs are little more than big biz and govt conducting business...sure, there are warped ideologies and religious beliefs within, but at the end of the day it's simply about power/profit.

[gratuitous]

11. How did George W. Bush's military career end?

I think the problem is that the wingnuts just ride and ride and ride their little hobby horses. And since they have better access to the media outlets, it's a cinch for even their looniest "theories" to get an airing.

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. The Birther thing is making Republicans look foolish.

Be glad that the media largely ignored the nutballs on our side.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

24. Because the birther theories are being pushed by...

...right-wing radio talk show hosts, many Republicans in positions of power, including Representatives, etc. Whereas 9/11 conspiracy theories are only pushed by crazy ass Alex Jones.

[chelsea0011]

31. Like Dan Burton (R) Ind. who executed a watermelon

to "prove" that Vince Foster was murdered by you know who? I understand he is a birther bill signer?

[izzybeans]

33. the truther conspiracies were debunked in a similar manner as the birfer ones.

It took one channel to break the ice and the rest followed suit.

They won't touch the one's with any hint of truth to them. Wellstone being an example

[Echo In Light]

44. Just curious: how do you view the PNAC as being instrumental to the Bush agenda?

I'm amazed that anyone would, considering the specifics of that group's aims, dismiss them out of hand as merely coincidental.

[izzybeans]

45. Huh?

Not sure I see the relevance.

PNAC and the Bush regime were the same people so do the math on their influence. If MIHOP or LIHOP were true then the story would be much larger than PNAC. The military brass floated this idea long before the early 90s.

[Uncle Joe]

37. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Tony_FLADEM.

[juno jones]

47. Interesting discussion. K&R. n/t

[HOLOS]

58. yes!