new shooting: Newtown, Conn. details breaking

[PatColo]

Nat'l ZSM goes on the attack against S.H. "conspiracy theories"... specifically Anderson Vanderbilt/Cooper's been tasked here with the first assault. @ John Friend's blog- his speculation is at the more extreme end I've seen, namely his first guess is 100% hoax, no one killed, all actors; see his: Calling bullshit on the Sandy Hook hoax! - Updated

Open to see reader comments:

Saturday, January 12, 2013


Anderson Cooper: Suppressing the truth about Sandy Hook?

Anderson Cooper, easily one of the most establishment serving, despicable scum bags in the mainstream mass media, is incredulous, and a bit irate, about some of the legitimate statements and claims made by Florida Atlantic professor of communications James Tracy about the Sandy Hook "shooting" hoax.

Anderson Cooper Tackles 'Sickening,' 'Ignorant' Newtown Conspiracy Theories

The excellent writer and actual journalist DC Dave Martin's Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression will come in handy after viewing the video above. Which techniques are Anderson Cooper and the clowns at CNN using to suppress the truth and perpetuate the Sandy Hook "shooting" hoax? I'd say numbers 2 and 4 are the techniques primarily on display in the video above. What do you think?

Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.
2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.
3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")
4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.
6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).
7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."
9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.
10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.
12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?
13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.
14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.
15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.
16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.
17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

Posted by John Friend at 10:28 AM 8 comments:
______________


here's the YT "more info" on the CNN clip above,

Published on Jan 11, 2013



Believe it or not, there are actually people out there who are convinced that last month's horrific shooting in Newtown, Connecticut was staged. Anderson Cooper opened his show tonight taking on these conspiracy theorists. He said that ordinarily, he wouldn't give much thought to insane conspiracies, but one of the people pushing them is a Florida professor who raises doubts as to whether the shooting "ever took place" in the way that the media described, and the whole thing was just a huge conspiracy to get the country behind gun control. And as if that wasn't unbelievable enough, he also suspects that some of the parents of the children were really actors.

RELATED: Colbert Takes On NRA's Wayne LaPierre: 'You, Sir, Are F**ked In The Head'

Cooper couldn't fathom how this professor could possibly have such kind of doubts, but he found an even crazier theory going around the internet: one of the little girls killed at Sandy Hook was not, in fact, present, which Cooper described as "sickening." And Cooper himself was even connected to the conspiracies, as one mother he interviewed on camera was not crying during the interview, therefore, by the logic of the conspiracy theorists, she could not have possibly been a real grieving mother.

Cooper said that in all the years he's interviewed people in grief, he has never seen people react the same way every single time, dismissing this theory as simply "ignorant." The aforementioned professor, regrettably, has elevated the conspiracy theories to a mainstream level that have spawned much outrage, especially over the fact that a public university is keeping him on the payroll.

Cooper brought on CNN reporter John Zarrella to reveal that they tried to have the professor on the program, but instead Zarrella went to Florida to confront the professor about his remarks. Zarrella revealed that over the phone, the professor said he would only provide an e-mail response, in which the professor apologized for "any additional anguish and grief" his comments may have caused, though for the most part he stuck to his guns.