Alternative
Media Censorship:
Bob Feldman and Brian Salter reply to a reader
Hello,
I saw and appreciated your essay on the foundational support
for Left orgs and writers that dismiss anything that smacks of
"conspiracism".
However, while I share with you the idea that such orgs and
writers should be critically evaluated, I do not think your evidence,
specifically, against Noam Chomsky is all that weighty. You don't
really present any evidence that Chomsky is a controlled person.
You cite the Inamori award from the "Japanese Establishment",
but that award was for his achievements in the area of linguistics
and cognitive science, not his political writings. So what does
the Inamori award have to do with anything? The award is somewhat
akin to the various Nobel prizes.
Also, you mentioned that Z magazine was perhaps named after
the Costa-Gavras film "Z". My recollection is that Z magazine
was originally named Zeta magazine, billing itself the last word,
as it were, in political writing. When Sargent and Albert found
out the name Zeta was already used by someone else, they opted
for the abbreviated form, 'Z'.
In any event, I fail to see how your charts, in general, necessarily
predict control of the sort you claim. However, I am eager to
examine more evidence of such if it exists.
Thanks, WiseSerpent
Bob Feldman replies:
Thank you for considering some of the possible institutional/political
reasons for censorship of 9/11 conspiracy journalists and researchers
by the foundation-sponsored alternative media gatekeepers.
Although MIT Professssor Chomsky has been on the payroll of
the 12th-largest recipient of US Air Force war contracts in recent
years, the article isn't asserting "that Chomsky is a controlled
person." But there is evidence that Z magazine was unwilling to
print an article about MIT's links to the U.S. Air Force's space
warfare preparations and to the Pentagon's think-tank, the Institute
for Defense Analyses, a few years ago.
Regarding the $350,000 award from the Inamori Foundation that
was set up by the chairman emeritus/founder of one of Japan's
leading telecommunications companies, DDI Corporation, that was
given to ALTERNATIVE RADIO's frequently featured guest: Generally,
recipients of such large grants from Establishment foundations
are reluctant to scrutinize or criticize a foundation world from
which they've obtained such a large sums of money. And, like the
Nobel prize money (that was initially obtained from Nobel's invention
and marketing of dynamite weapons), some of the Inamori Foundation
money was originally obtained from DDI's ownership of 75% of the
AVX Coroporation--which is an electronic company that (like MIT)
is a key contractor in the U.S. aerospace/military industry.
Regarding evidence that the alternative media gatekeepers are
reluctant to either air or publish criticism of the Soros/Open
Society Institute, the Ford Foundation, Bill Moyers' Schumann
Foundation or the MacArthur Foundation or encourage much fair
of discussion of 9/11 conspiracy evidence in their media: I don't
think much evidence exists of any foundation-sponsored gatekeeper
eagerness to either scrutinize the Establishment foundations or
welcome 9/11 conspiracy discussion. Yet as G. William Domhoff
wrote long ago in his book Who Rules America?: "The foundation
boards have the power to accept or reject various scientific,
educational, and culture ventures. They therefore have the power
to exert considerable influence over the noneconomic aspects of
American life." Refusing to acknowledge that the multi-billion
or multi-million dollar foundations possess great power to influence
alternative media editorial priorities through their funding policies,
seems like an illogical interpretation of current U.S. political/social
reality.
Brian Salter replies:
To clarify, Mike Ruppert is of the opinion that the Left "gatekeepers"
phenomenon to which we are drawing attention is the result of
a classic COINTELPRO-style infiltration. Given his expertise and
personal experience in this area, he is more than justified in
voicing that opinion. In certain cases, the egregious and unconscionable
behavior of some "Left" media figures literally begs the question
-- but again, one should note that we have not made this type
of claim, and the title of Feldman's article itself says "Sponsored
by the Ford Foundation," not "Controlled by the Ford Foundation."
The burden of proof is not on us to verify the existence of
a formalized arrangement or quid pro quo in order to raise the
issue of foundation funding of Left media as a crucial concern.
Instead, the burden of proof is on those who receive foundation
funding to demonstrate (against all historical precedents and
common sense) that they are capable of providing unbiased and
unfettered coverage on the most sensitive issues involving the
US ruling establishment. The most logical starting point is not
to ask, "are these media figures being controlled and censored
by an outside agency?" but instead to ask "are these media figures
controlling and censoring themselves?" John Moyers of TomPaine.com
could not have said it better:
"If they don't like what we're doing, we don't get paid next
year."
Even more fundamentally, one of the most damning points of all
is already made by the prima facie evidence itself. As Feldman
notes above, with an informed and responsible understanding of
political and social realities, it would be very naieve to adopt
the default assumption that "philanthropic" foundation funding
is neutral and benign until proven otherwise. Elite foundations
do not throw their money around without looking for a return on
their investment, and the rapidly broadening and expanding foundation
funding of establishment Left media indicates that they have been
getting the return they desire. The elites are paying to promote
the type of opposition which they believe is most compatible with
their interests; they are paying to promote the type of "dissidence"
which will do them the least harm.
Even giving the most generous benefit of the doubt, assuming
that the establishment Left media orgainizations and individuals
in question are all completely sincere and unhesitant in their
pursuits and clear of any conflicts of interest, one still cannot
avoid this basic question: if they (and their general school of
thought) have found such positive favor with the Ford Foundation
and other well-known elite instruments of mass control and social
engineering, are they really doing the job that needs to be done?
And how can one find any continuing credibility in their rigidly
controlled ideological positions as a genuinely effective and
viable basis for "dissent"?
As the threat of a new war in the Persian Gulf builds day by
day, it becomes increasingly important to ask these kinds of questions.
Those who have fully studied the issues and facts concerning 9/11
and the Bush administration's inexplicable coverup and lies understand
rationally that this is not a topic of "conspiracy theory" but
instead a true scandal of serious proportions. This can no longer
be denied. It is a scandal which, if aggressively pursued by the
media, should have helped hamstring and sideline the Bush administration
months ago, which would have made it politically impossible for
them to push ahead with their war plans in the first place. Thus,
for those who have been striving to uncover the underlying truths
behind 9/11 and the "War on Terror," the imminent possibility
of this terrifying new war is a double tragedy. For this reason,
we feel there is an urgent imperative to expose and scrutinize
the institutional factors which have steered the establishment
Left media toward their current gatekeeping / censorship agendas.
original article:
ALTERNATIVE
MEDIA CENSORSHIP:
SPONSORED BY CIA's FORD FOUNDATION?