People are losing trust in mainstream media because of perceived biased coverage of the Gaza genocide. If that erosion of trust is real, why isn’t it prompting wider public re-examination of historical cover-ups and contested narratives — Watergate, Iran–Contra, Iraq, even shifting beliefs about who “beat” the Nazis? If we don’t question how past information was shaped, what’s the point of preserving evidence (e.g., Gaza genocide evidence recently removed from YouTube by Google)? Won’t this all be forgotten in a few years, the same way all those previous events are no longer discussed?

What’s stopping a sustained, constructive public inquiry into these parallels between past cover-ups and current information control? Where are good, constructive places to discuss these issues without falling into unproductive conspiracy spirals?

  • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
    21·
    20 hours ago

    Most of the past ones have been admitted and are out in the open. A few big ones like JFK and 9/11 remain.

    Tucker Carlson did an Interesting 9/11 series recently though (no I don’t endorse Tucker Carlson as a whole)

    • ltxrtquq@lemmy.mlEnglish
      4·
      3 hours ago

      1092: Tucker, The Man And His 9/11 Documentary

      The guys at Knowledge Fight went over the first part of the documentary, and my takeaway was there’s nothing new, the primary person being interviewed is a well known liar, and there’s a lot dishonest claims being made and not a lot of evidence being given.

      So what exactly do you think is so interesting about Tucker Carlson’s series? What new things did you learn about 9/11?

      • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
        21·
        3 hours ago

        I searched that website for mentions of Gaza or Palestine and there seems to be no episode about it so I’m going to treat it as government propaganda.

        • ltxrtquq@lemmy.mlEnglish
          41·
          3 hours ago

          What are you talking about? Why would something be government propaganda just because you can’t find mentions of Gaza or Palestine? It’s a podcast mostly about Alex Jones, not a news agency. Are you always like this?

          • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
            21·
            2 hours ago

            If it never debunks any propaganda about Palesestine it’s government propaganda it’s literally that easy. Try reading the post you are in.

            • ltxrtquq@lemmy.mlEnglish
              1·
              2 hours ago

              Alright, cool. So what did Tucker Carlson say that you thought was so interesting?

              And I guess follow up question: was it all just government propaganda? Because I doubt he ever debunked any propaganda about Palestine.

              • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
                1·
                2 hours ago

                Some fun facts about how the attackers were very obviously recruited by the CIA for a false flag. How they kept getting Saudi visas to the US even when one of the attackers stupidly locked himself out of the US.

                Also yes Tucker has debunked a lot of Israeli propaganda, though just by repeating left wing points.

                • ltxrtquq@lemmy.mlEnglish
                  21·
                  2 hours ago

                  Starting around 38:30 in the podcast

                  Dan Friesen: So the argument is that the CIA was trying to recruit these hijackers and make them into informants. And that is a theory. It is not established. It is not proven. But they start to just treat it as if they have proven it.

                  Mark Rossini: You have the CIA then following one man and then two men all over the planet and then eventually even to America, right? Landing in Los Angeles, California, and you don’t tell the FBI.

                  Tucker Carlson: But why would the CIA want to hide the highly relevant and potentially dangerous fact that two known al-Qaeda terrorists had just landed in California? According to a recently released court filing, former White House counterterrorism star Richard Clark told government investigators that the quote: “CIA was running a false flag operation to recruit the hijackers.”

                  Richard Clark: When Cofer Black became the head of the counterterrorism center at CIA, he was aghast that they had no sources in Al-Qaeda. So he told me, I’m going to try to get sources in Al-Qaeda. I can understand them possibly saying we need to develop sources inside Al-Qaeda. When we do that, we can’t tell anybody about it.

                  Dan Friesen: So it’s important to pay attention to the way that information is used by people like Tucker and notice the little tweaks that they make in order to push their narratives. In this case, Tucker is setting up his clip of Richard Clark, and he says that Clark revealed that the CIA was engaged in a false flag to recruit these hijackers.

                  Then he plays the clip of Clark that does not say that. But instead is Clark saying that he could understand the intelligence folks trying to secretly turn the future hijackers into informants. He wasn’t saying that the CIA was doing this, but he understood how it was possible.

                  Yeah, one of the conspiracy theorists’ main tricks is equating proving that something is possible with proving that it’s true. Richard Clark saying that it’s possible that the CIA was trying to recruit the hijackers as informants is not the same thing as him saying that is what happened. But Tucker knows that to his audience, it is the same.

                  I don’t know man, maybe you need to work on your media literacy a little more. Or maybe just as a rule, you shouldn’t be taking anything Tucker Carlson says seriously.

                  • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
                    11·
                    2 hours ago

                    Once again I don’t listen to ‘media literate’ people who never talked about Palestine they are deeply unserious. Read the post you are in.