The highly skeptical news reader

Those features of the world outside which have to do with the behavior of other human beings, in so far as that behavior crosses ours, is dependent upon us, or is interesting to us, we call roughly public affairs. The pictures inside the heads of these human beings, the pictures of themselves, of others, of their needs, purposes, and relationship, are their public opinions. Those pictures which are acted upon by groups of people, or by individuals acting in the name of groups, are Public Opinion with capital letters. Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion, 1922

The attempted bomb placement in Times Square in New York is an event that invites high skepticism from many angles, and our news media needs to be vigilant and on the lookout for manipulation and deception in the official portrayal of the event.

They are not, of course. They are uniformly worthless, blindly repeating what they are told by authority on high, never voicing doubt about official pronouncements, never offering context.

All that can be said with any assurance is this: A car was left in Times Square. Officials say there was a bomb in it. A suspect has been arrested. A name has been released. At first The New York Police Department said the van appeared to have been left there by a white male in his 40’s. Now that has been abandoned, and the supposed bomber is said to be a Pakistani. Certain groups, using the Internet, have claimed responsibility for the attempted bombing, if it was an attempted bombing.

First, ground-level skepticism: Our leaders have been governing based on fear since around December 7, 1941. Sometime in 1945, any real threats to our security ceased. In the late 1940’s, the U.S. was at war again in China, in 1950 in Korea, and thereafter ensued a “Cold” War which was emblematic of a new National Security State. The fear campaign was a good indication that the U.S. was soon going to start attacking other countries.

Since that time, fear has been the main governing force in our land. People in charge (or perceived as such) must play the fear card or face accusations of being weak on communism drugs terrorism.

In light of a government that relies on fear to hold effective control of public opinion, we must be highly suspicious of events that exacerbate fear, especially bombs that do not go off.

Often times the first official pronouncements on ground level are the most accurate. Later renditions of events often have been injected with official truth, or lies. So if New York police first suspected a white male, my inclination would be to suspect that white male had something to do with the van being left there.

We must also be highly skeptical of claims of responsibility that seep into our news media from foreign sources. A common method of domestic propaganda by our own government is to first plant a story abroad, and then import it. It looks more credible that way. And, any damned fool can have a web site. Imagine how easy it would be for American agents to run a web site and claim to be a foreign “terrorist” group.

But let’s assume that there really was a bomb in the SUV in Times Square, and that it really was fused and ready to go off. Assume that it really was done by a Pakistani and not a 40-year-old white male, and that the Pakistani was connected to a larger group that has claimed responsibility. What is the context?

If you are an American, and you get your news from American sources, then you don’t know squat. Why would a Pakistani try to kill American civilians?

Could it be that the United States has attacked Pakistan and is killing civilians over there?

We are told that the van was parked close to Viacom headquarters, which aired an episode of South Park that 1) accused Tom Cruise of being a “fudge packer”, and 2) portrayed the prophet Mohammad as a voice inside a bear costume.

This could mean that the bomber, if there was a real bomb, could have been employed by Tom Cruise. We should not jump to the wrong conclusion.

This is a sketchy outline on how to watch news: 1) Don’t believe what you are told unless you see it with your own eyes, and 2) don’t believe what you see.

Which brings me back to Lippmann. He was saying something very important, and to which I once alluded in a blog post (A Photo Essay) that turned out to be one of the most widely read (viewed) ever at this site: Our thoughts are managed by images. If you cannot imagine why a Pakistani citizen might be enraged at the United States, it is because you never get to see pictures of his homeland and what our country is doing there.

I often address the matter of thought control, as if such a thing were possible with sentient humans. It is often done with words, but images are far more powerful. That’s why you never see this:

It is thought control that automatically make you doubt the authenticity of this photo. Not that such a thing is possible.