I’ve got almost as many op-eds in

my files with theories as to why the MSM does

not report on the DSM, as those that do report.

 There are more letters to the editor

demanding coverage, as there are letters by

informed citizens with good advice for action to

take (i.e. Congress, the Senate, and Coalition


But there are very few articles, op-eds and

letters to the editor that address the basic

problem of WHY there is so little, or almost NO

coverage in the US Main Stream Media about

the Downing Street Documents, the RAF

bombing, the pre-war bombing, etc.

Here follows four theories.  You might not

like this.


Branzburg v. Hayes is a court case from 1972

that addresses the journalist’s rights to protect

his/her sources.  The passage from the

judge’s ruling that has bearing on the US

non-reporting of the DSM is here:

There remain those

situations where a source is not engaged in

criminal conduct but has information suggesting

illegal conduct by others. Newsmen frequently

receive information from such sources pursuant

to a tacit or express agreement to withhold the

source’s name and suppress any information

that the source wishes not published. Such

informants presumably desire anonymity in order

to avoid being entangled as a witness in a

criminal trial or grand jury investigation. They

may fear that disclosure will threaten their job

security or personal safety or that it will simply

result in dishonor or


Now in this situation we are dealing with

reporting on the illegality of the war in Iraq is

made almost impossible by journalists in the

Main Stream Media because of what is

contained in Branzburg v. Hayes.  We are

talking about criminality at the very highest level

of US government, and an involvement that is all

encompassing… nearly every branch of

government is involved.  Congress, too,

I’m sorry to say.  The October Resolution

was not Constitutional.


You will not believe me when I tell you that the

top reporter on the story of the illegal war in Iraq

for the last three years, was told by his

managing editor not to write stories that reported

the truth of the situation because it was

unpatriotic and would lead to non-support for the

President’s policies.  Yet, it


On what basis can this be considered allowable

within First Ammendment protections of the

freedom of speech?

Well, there’s this:

Types of


Censorship can be explicit, as in laws passed to

prevent information being published or

propagated (as in Australia, or Saudi Arabia

where certain Internet pages are not permitted

entry), or it can be implicit, taking the form of

intimidation by government or even by

popular censure, where people are afraid to

express or support certain opinions for fear of

losing their lives, or their jobs, position in

society, or in academia, their academic

credibility. In this latter form it is similar to


These two forms (explicit and

implicit) can be generalized to represent laws

and government authority (explicit) and social

forces or social persuasion (implicit).

During wartime, censorship is carried out

with the intention of preventing the release of

information that might be advantageous to the

enemy  Typically it involves obfuscation of

times or locations, or delaying the release of

information (e.g. the objective of an operation)

until it is of no possible use to enemy forces.

Mention of weapons and equipment (especially if

newly introduced) is another favourite area for


The moral issues here are

somewhat different as release of the information

carries a high risk of increased casualties

among one’s own forces and possibly loss of the

overall conflict.

Censorship is regarded as a

typical feature of dictatorships and other

authoritarian political systems. Democratic

nations usually have far less institutionalized

censorship, and instead tout the importance of

freedom of speech

Some thinkers understand

censorship to include other attempts to suppress

points of view or ideas such as negative

propaganda, media manipulation, spin,

disinformation,  or “free speech zones”

(ghettoizing or containing speech). These

methods, collectively, tend to work by

disseminating misleading information or by

preventing other ideas from obtaining a receptive




Now it is possible that the US government has

imposed censorship on the fourth estate using

as its argument that during wartime, accurate

reporting of bombing campaigns, US casualties,

and battle/attack figures would be aiding and

abetting the enemy.  But in our situation,

the only enemy that would have been aided by

reporting the truth are those enemies to tyranny

and Empire that have been trying to correct the

excesses and abuses of power of this



Is it possible that the truth HAS been reported,

but the people, in their stupor did not recognize


Certainly.  Case in point, my hero, Bob

Woodward.  There has been so much

Woodward slamming around dKos ever since the

outing of “Deep Throat” that I had to give up

defending him.

One of the avenues of attack was Woodward’s

book “Plan of Attack.”  The following

passage is from Shakespeare’s Sister, at: THE DAILY



LEADER! Amazing! When Plan of Attack first

appeared, the press said it proved Bush’s


Yes–Woodward’s book does show the Bush

Admin “fixing the facts and the intelligence.” And

yes, it does show them starting to do this shortly

after the Downing Street memo appeared. But

when this fascinating book first appeared, it

wasn’t used by the Washington press to batter

the Bush Admin on this score. Quite the

contrary–the book was used to praise Wise

Leader Bush for the great depth of his honesty!

How did this odd transaction occur? Let’s go

back to the front-page report with which the Post

introduced this new book–a front-page report

which took us straight to the book’s most

ballyhooed passage.

“Plan of Attack” was released in April 2004. On

Saturday morning, April 17, the Post ran a

front-page report on its contents, written by

reporter William Hamilton. In his second

paragraph, Hamilton cited the puzzling anecdote

which became the book’s most famous passage.

Surely, you recall that “slam dunk:”

HAMILTON (4/17/04): Beginning in late

December 2001, President Bush met repeatedly

with Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his war

cabinet to plan the U.S. attack on Iraq even as

he and administration spokesmen insisted they

were pursuing a diplomatic solution, according to

a new book on the origins of the war.

The intensive war planning throughout 2002

created its own momentum, according to “Plan of

Attack” by Bob Woodward, fueled in part by the

CIA’s conclusion that Saddam Hussein could not

be removed from power except through a war

and CIA Director George J. Tenet’s assurance to

the president that it was a “slam dunk” case that

Iraq possessed weapons of mass



For six weeks now, we

have been examining the Downing Street

Minutes.  Of all eight Downing Street

Memos, this one continues to be the most

damning.  And it is the phrase “intelligence

was being fixed” to fit the policy of illegal war

with Iraq that is smoking gun in that one.

The MSM in the United States has been and

continues to be part of that system of

“intelligence was fixed.”  If you want to see

this in action, follow the Newsweek story on the

desecration of the Qu’ran.

How did that one go again? Newsweek reported

the truth, as had the International Committee of

the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, and

Amnesty before them. A massive amount of FBI

emails released through the FOIA by the ACLU

last December told the same story. Yet the US

government stepped in and demanded that

Newsweek retract, and blamed the press for the

ensuing violence for having reported the truth.

The Qu’ran was desecrated, but one was not to

report it.

At a White House Press Conference one bold

journalist asked Scott McClellan when he

became the managing editor of Newsweek.

 I don’t think we have yet to get an answer

to that one.

There’s my four theories.  Of all of them, I

would ask you to consider theory number one,

Branzburg v. Hayes.  Put yourself in the

place of the journalist who is more loyal to the

pursuit of the truth than he is to his newspaper’s

editorial policy.  He is going to lose his/her job,

his/her standing in the pecking order, or his/her mind.

 (His/her)  What would you do?

 Report, tone it down, or look for a new


I have found that it’s job security that cuts right

through the BS every time.  We all talk a

good game, until we are looking at our last

paycheck.  It takes courage of the very

highest order to take on this story.

 Courage I think very few of us possess.

 I’ll close now with a list of the most

courageous Americans on my list at


Great People of

Our Time

National Security Whistleblowers Coalition

Bittler, Thomas, Training Coordinator, TSA-DHS

Carman, John, Former Senior Inspector, U.S.

Chudson, Jonathan, Former
Special Agents, IG-Office, EPA
Cole, John M., Former Veteran Intelligence
Operations Specialist, FBI
Conrad, David “Mark”, Retired Agent in Charge,

Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs
Connolly, Frank, Senior Screening Manager @

Buffalo, TSA
Copley, James, Project Manager, DOE Costello,

Edward J. Jr., Former Special Agent,

Counterintelligence, FBI
Cruse, Larry, Army Intelligence Analyst, DOD

Dzakovic, Bogdan, Former Red Team Leader,

Edmonds, Sibel, Former Language Specialist,

Ellsberg, Dan, Former Special Assistant to the

Assistant Secretary of Defense (ISA), DOD
Elson, Steve, Veteran Agent, FAA
Forbes, David, Aviation, Logistics and Govt.

Security Analysts
German, Mike, Former Special Agent,

Counterterrorism, FBI
Goodman, Melvin A., Former Senior Analyst/

Division Manager, CIA; Senior Fellow at the

Center for International Policy
Guagliardi, Ray, training coordinator, TSA-DHS

Jenkins, Steve, Intelligence Analyst, NGIC, US

Kwiatkowski, Karen U., Lt. Col. USAF (ret.),
Veteran Policy Analyst-DOD
Larkin, Lynne A., Former Operations Officer, CIA

Lau, Lok, Former Special Agent,

Counterintelligence, FBI
Lipsky, John, Supervisory Special Agent, FBI

Mansour, Joe, Occupational Safety Specialist,

Federal Bureau of Prisons
MacMichael, David, Former Senior Estimates

Officer, CIA
McGovern, Raymond L., Former Analyst, CIA

Nunn, Sandy, Former Special Agent, US

Pahle, Theodore J., Senior Intelligence Officer

(Ret), DIA
Price, Paul, Language Analyst, NSA
Sarshar, Behrooz, Retired Language Specialist,

Sculimbrene, Dennis, Former Special Agent, FBI

Springmann, Mike, Foreign Service Officer-5;

Second Secretary & Vice Consul,

Department of State
Starns, Robert, Special Agent in Charge,

Diplomatic Security Service, Department of

State Stroup, Jay, Former Federal Security

Director, TSA
Sullivan, Brian, Special Agent, Risk Program

Management Specialist, FAA
Tice, Russ, Senior Intelligence Analyst &

Action Officer, NSA
Tortorich, Larry J., Retired Naval Officer, US

Navy & Dept. of Homeland Security/TSA,

Turner, Jane, Veteran Special Agent, FBI
Vincent, John, Veteran Special Agent,

Counterterrorism, FBI
Walp, Glenn, PhD, Former Office Leader of the

Office of Security Inquiries, Los Alamos National

Lab, DOE
Woo, Robert, Special Agent, Counterintelligence,

Wright, Robert, Veteran Special agent,
Counterterrorism, FBI

Veterans Affairs Whistleblowers Coalition

Government Accountability Project

0 0 votes
Article Rating