by Pants Elk » Wed Aug 10, 2005 5:33 am
Linked from the Rense site:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.financialoutrage.org.uk/911_mainstream_media.htm">www.financialoutrage.org...._media.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>The significance of this is that the article (in itself nothing new to anyone who's done a bit of internet sleuthing the last couple of years) appears in the Daily Mail, a notoriously right-wing paper.<br><br>Although the article (a review of an upcoming UK book investigating 911) hedges its bets a little, it goes as far as it possibly could without actually pointing the finger at Bush. This is extraordinary. The readership of the Daily Mail is extremely reactionary and militaristic (what they would call "patriotic"), and for that demographic to be presented with this sort of information is ... words fail me. In the Guardian, maybe, but the Mail?<br><br>There's no mention of David Ray Griffin, who must be saying "hey! Didn't I already write that book?", or the 911 truth movement generally, but this is a watershed piece of journalism.<br><br>Any newspaper in the US likely to run a similar article?<br><br>(Oh, and there's already been a whiff of "disinfo" reaction to this story. The Mail doesn't have to be that subtle. Its readership certainly isn't. The "correct" party line they could have followed would have been to run a story under the headline "POPPYCOCK! 9/11 BUSH SMEAR ATTEMPT LEAVES CONSPIRACY THEORISTS WITH EGG ON FACE") <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pantselk>Pants Elk</A> at: 8/10/05 3:36 am<br></i>
