Conspiracy Theories printed in the New York Times

I'm not convinced they stand on a good platform to criticize others for spreading wild conspiracy theories.

The first one that comes to mind is spreading George Bush's now discredited conspiracy theory that Iraq was tied to 911 and was ready to use WMD's on the US at any given moment. Why did it take so long for the Times to begin questioning that story spread by a bunch of conspiracy theorist kooks?

Does anyone know of any others? Let's make a list.

We might also include thing dismissed as conspiracy theories by the Times that turned out to be true.

Judith Miller's gibber gabber of disinformation about Iraq appeared on their front page. Imagine taking Chalabi and Cheney at face value, and never following up.

People killed because of silly tsunami theories: 0
People killed because of lies and disinformation about Iraq published as fact in the New York Times: c. 101,200, to date.

from an article at the time of his passing:

In August 1996, Webb wrote one of the first pieces of journalism that reached a massive audience thanks to the Internet: an explosive 20,000 word, three-part series documenting links between cocaine traffickers, the crack epidemic of the 1980s and the CIA-organized right-wing Nicaraguan Contra army of that era. The series sparked major interest in the social justice and African-American communities, leading to street protests, constant discussion on black-oriented talk radio and demands by Congressional Black Caucus members for a federal investigation. But weeks later, Webb suffered a furious backlash at the hands of national media unaccustomed to seeing their role as gatekeepers diminished by the emerging medium known as the WorldWideWeb...

While Webb's series could be faulted for some overstatement in presenting its powerful new evidence (a controversial graphic on the Mercury News website superimposed a person smoking crack over the CIA seal), the fresh documentation mightily moved forward the CIA-Contra-cocaine story that national media had been trying to bury for years. Any exaggeration in the Mercury News presentation was dwarfed by a mendacious, triple-barreled attack on Webb that came from the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1213-31.htm

all you have to do is release potential energy - it doesn't take 9.2 worth of power to trigger a 9.2...

Funny that we are supposed to believe that an airliner can down a WTC, but a small detonation can't trigger an earthquake?

You are about to be run over by a huge herd of cattle that'll stampede out of nowhere just to trample you.

Moo

Moo?

but I've been hit by em a couple of times today already, and I have the hoofmarks to prove it !

Love the cow, and the emoticon chase though. First time I've chuckled over this!

I can't think of a good motive, especially the way they fumbled the relief effort, but I am saying that I'm not sure the idea is technically unfeasible.

If they can trigger show avalanches, then they can trigger an earthquake.

conventional weapon that could create an earthquake, although there is always the possibility of an unknown unconventional one...but it wouldn't take much to trigger something that already has a lot of pressure built up.

It might be possible to do, but the problem isn't with the "trigger" - it's because the results will be unpredictable, and a weapon that you can't control isn't a very valuable weapon at all.

The nations involved in WWI found this out about chemical warfare when they discovered that it was subject to variables out of their control, and chemical warfare has not been used widely in conflicts since.

but you see, even talking about it, or mulling over other possibilities, is heresy I gather. Hence the stampeding cattle.

One thread here has 127 posts, and another one has over 300.

If you venture into em...well, watch out for the hooves is all I can say. :D

Explore ideas. Air them out. Once the stuffing gets kicked out of them let them go. But in such times as these when calamatus events are occurring the emotions surrounding them get to people. They become convinced that these things had to happen for a reason. It becomes overwhelming. They become obsessed with finding out why it had to happen. When in all possibility there is no why. There is no who. It simply and saddly is.

We have been through this before. When something terrible happens the tinfoilers start trying to figure out how the evil ones pulled it off. It hurst to see their pain. So we let it go for a little while. But it only gets worse. Eventually you someone has to step in and take action. Thus the hoof prints.


Moo

to take 'any' action. It's just people talking and throwing around ideas and thoughts. What this place is supposed to be for.

Nobody was obsessed either. It was simply an interesting thought exercise.

To say 'there is no why, there is no who, it simply is'....is the same old 'it's God's will or it's the will of Allah' routine...fatalism, and the killing of curiousity, or urge to change things.

Shrug and give up? What kind of people do that?

Wasn't a call to bring out the stake and matches either...it's NEVER a time to do that.

And yes, I recognized the herd again. I was being polite in hopes you'd go to bed.

You explore ideas. If they are not reasonable you move on.

I am not one that calls for the silence and muzzling of those exploring outside the stadium (they left the box a long time ago). I am just trying to explain the psychology in play here and why groups respond the way they do.

Explore. Imagine. Just be prepared when people reject the ideas because you don't have enough backing it up.

There was just suddenly a herd trampling everything and everyone.

I understand why people do that, and it has nothing to do with wanting immediate 'proof'...they simply can't stand a free exchange of ideas without hastening in to 'straighten everyone out' according to their lights.

Jeebus, you'd think people were murdering kittens or something.

The murdering kittens thing, I mean.




After all, every time you vote Republican, God kills a kitten.

There are a couple of dynamics at play here. On the one hand there is exploration of ideas (a good thing). Sometimes the ideas get a little out there (still a good thing). When someone comes by and sees the loopy stuff they can draw conclusions that don't necissarily fit the situation. If they happen to be a nationally syndicated news organisation looking for an easy target to ridicule the left they are going to run with it. This leaves us feeling humiliated. It weakens our case and drives individuals away that we may have benefitted from talking with. It makes us a continuing target for those that would benefit from ridiculing the left. Thus we become even more concerned about ideas that are slightly out there. Of course we could stand our ground and pass out tinfoil hats for everyone. But this leads to mass exodus as everyone runs away from the lime light and conspiracy nuts.

Its not an easy situation. I really do understand the point of view of those looking to discuss this issue. But I also see the dynamics of the situation. Now is there anything I can do for you about that hoof mark on your back?

but the free republic site has been held up to ridicule in the media as well, and called some really dreadful things...yet they still go on, and have even been effective with some things they've done.

They all sound crazy to me, and they've certainly opened the door to ridicule of the 'right', but it doesn't appear to stop them from discussing things or gaining new posters.

Lots of chatsites and blogs go through the same process, and yet continue to be popular. The main stream media naturally makes fun of a new form of reporting, discussing, and passing on news...whether the news is questionable or legit. Even the 'regular' media, Fox news for example, is made fun of.

I just assumed that discussions of things ....serious or silly...was just discussion. Not the judgement of a nation.

Its about control. Applying force to enable control. If we cannot control the force then it is meaningless.

Ww2 was a good example of both sides using whatever weapons there were available, if they were useful. The Germans terrorized London with the WW2 equivalent of cruise missiles, we firebombed both the Germans and the Japanese, the Japanese did some REALLY nasty things to the Chinese, and of course there were Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And that's only a brief list - the atrocities go on and on. War is inhumane, and if chemical warfare made sense militarily then we (and the other sides) would have used it.

Or doesn't that count as chemical warfare?

There were rumours of use of chemical agents in Fallujah. However, it will be hard to prove because the Army would never admit it.

Although you make a good point, I don't think this is quite the same thing because it wasn't used as a weapon. It also reinforces my point that these things are hard to control - just look at all the problems that have sprung from the use of Agent Orange that weren't predicted back then.

Let me make this clear - chemical warfare has been used since WWI, it is just not a common battlefield tool because it is unpredictable. That doesn't mean that it hasn't been used in certain situations.

Two different phenomena.

An avalanche is a snowslide. Snowfall, wind--any number of things can cause avalanches. During World War I in the Alpine front, the mere rumble of artillery could trigger one. On the other hand, to manipulate tectonic plates would require a tremendous amount of power and energy.

Let me assure you that it is technically unfeasible.

Ignorance of physics and geography. Nothing we have done in Iraq triggered the damn earthquake.

Throwing in the WTC thing just strengthens their point.

of dozens of things mentioned, hardly the only one.

And right away, the words 'ignorance of physics and geography'

It was simply a harmless general discussion.

Aren't they the ones giving Ann Coulter air time?

Hello, Pot? I’ve got a collect call from Kettle. Will you accept the charges?

To support your argument, here are two studies showing how the leading newspapers of the US, including the NY Times, supported the WMD conspiracy theory even though they should have known better.

1) Michael Massing, Now They Tell Us, The New York Review of Books, Volume 51, Number 3,
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16922

2) Chris Money, Columbia Journalism Review, Issue March/April 2004
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/2/mooney-war.asp