Reply #35: question here

[Rich Hunt]

I've been reading the Village Voice for a long time. I used to read it religiously, in fact. I enjoyed the coverage of local politics and art and music, as well as the media criticism. However, I haven't had as much time for it in recent years.

HOWEVER...the respect that many people have for the writing in this paper does not automatically mean they are the most 'authoritative' source when it comes to vetting these 'conspiracy theories'.

The question is: what are the Village Voice's credentials when it comes to science and engineering coverage? In my experience, this is not their strong suit, nor should it be. Are we trying to fairly examine an idea, or are we simply trying to push it front and center, at the expense of all others? I do not think it is in the Voice's interest to capitulate to demands for one-sided advocacy of a certain ill-defined (and extremely limited, scientifically speaking - all these people want to talk about are fires, it seems) perspective on 9/11.

What sort of journalism is the Voice known for? The Village Voice's journalistic distinction is usually within the realm of urban society and culture, particularly within New York.

This is the problem we have with these people who keep trying to 'legitimate' their pet theories. Over the years, I have seen this process at work on many boards.

Let's say someone has an issue they would like to 'mainstream' (hopefully at the expense of others).

They might start out talking it up on message boards. These people KNOW that message boards are read by media figures, academics, and sometimes public servants. I'm sure many of you remember Elizabeth Edwards and Mark Crispin Miller coming to DU. That sort of thing is a 'sign' to some people with an agenda that they can use this forum to build 'support' for their 'theories' (or at least the illusion of it).

Even if the content of certain message boards goes largely unacknowledged in the papers or on cable news, you will see this board and many other boards get a cursory mention in, say, the New York Times. That is a cue for people with 'issues' to put on 'a show' for the media, to make sure their 'issues' (or beefs, in some cases) get placed right under the noses of those who read the boards.

They hope that the fire might spread to blogs as well. If 'the fire' spreads to enough places and gets talked up enough, it might show up in activist events, mailing lists read by academics who get quoted in the media, etc.

The goal is to get 'theories' or agendas legimated by repeating them as often as possible.

(We should ask: is the purpose of this message board to communicate, refine our ideas, educate ourselves, and meet people of like minds...or is our purpose here just to get stuff into the media?)

So the real purpose of the original message is to boast: 'hey, we got our little 'beef' into that left-wing (but still 'credentialed') rag the Village Voice'. In fact the description in the original post sounds as if it were written by a Voice marketing department...

My point stands : some of these self-styled 'conspiracy theorists' can't have it both ways. They cannot continue to complain that they're being 'silenced' by unnamed professional bodies and yet strive for 'validation' at the same time. Because that is the heart of their whole poorly defined 'theory' of American political life (it is IMPLIED) : that there is a massive 'conspiracy' on the part of the professional classes (the 'institutions' : government, academia, professions such as engineering and architecture) to keep 'the truth' away from 'the people'.

You see what is really going on here: scientists and academics and engineers and 'the government' do not have your best interests at heart. They are part of this enormous conspiracy. They don't care about you. And yet, at the same time - we TOTALLY want to to be 'legitimated' by being accepted by them! Oh look! One of 'them' 'validated' us by printing our story in their paper!

The only problem is, I can't recall this ever being a serious thesis among American progressive or grass-roots movements. Grass-roots movements are about 'people power' - they're not about seeking validation from 'the system' as it is.

I have a broader thesis regarding all of this, but 'discrediting' professional organizations and the government as a whole appears to be one of the goals of these propagandists. I repeat, this was NEVER the goal of progressive political activist groups. Only extremists and paranoids hold that view.

I don't want to take up too much of people's time here, so I will leave it at that.