Manufacturing Content

Propaganda, ProFootballTalk, & The 24 Hour News Cycle by Lqoau

Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play. -Joseph Goebbels
Last months reported assassination of Osama bin Laden by U.S. Special Forces was praised unanimously in the American press; depicted as avenging the attacks of September 11th 2001 by conservative and liberal media alike, and reviving a flood of patriotic unity not seen in America since the attacks first occurred. President Obamas rousing speech on the evening of May 1st spurred people into the streets to celebrate, sent sports crowds into nationalistic frenzy, and inspired a flood of praise across the internet by mass and social media alike. The inclusion of the latter in this discussion, which is in essence the collective voice of individual users on blogs and networking sites, signals the co-option of social media by the power elite, using it in concert with their already entrenched systems of mass media to discourage public discourse. No clearer was this new relationship evident than in the bizarre over-coverage of comments made by Pittsburgh Steelers running back Rashard Mendenhall on the popular NFL rumor website ProFootballTalk (PFT). The website, which has grown from an unassuming fan blog into a daily must-read for football fans, players, and insiders alike, was listed behind only Deadspin as Sports Illustrateds Most Influential Blog of the Decade in December 2009. By the time these accolades came, however, PFT had undergone massive organizational changes. In June of that year Mike Florio, founder and editor of ProFootballTalk, sold the websites exclusive content rights to NBC Sports, creating a dangerous new hybrid that, as I will illustrate, serves to censor the authentic and individualistic spirit of social media. The rapid emergence of genuine social media, which now includes 23.5 million blogs on every topic of interest and study imaginable, has had a tremendous impact on our access to information, which in turn has led to an increased demand for transparency on a global scale. By providing motivated citizens a platform to deliver news, without the conflicts of interest, perceived or otherwise, of employers, editors, and advertisers, the internet has brought about an incredible and unprecedented redistribution of knowledge from the hands of the few to the hands of the many. ProFootballTalk is in fact a great example of the change one man can foster in this new era with little more than hard work, a pot of coffee, and an internet connection. Updating his website between the responsibilities of a full-time law practice and young family, Florio vastly

broadened Americas interest in and understanding of football by illuminating the secretive inner workings of the NFL. Readership skyrocketed as Florio covered topics the sports media typically considered either too controversial or too mundane, and offered in-depth analysis desperately lacking from the mainstream news, which generally finds a few surface talking points known as sound bytes to repeat over and over in lieu of true discourse. Though the websites early years entailed a lot of early mornings, late nights, and personal sacrifice - all without much in the way of wages, recognition, or respect - Florio was free to cover football in his own unique way, deciding for himself what was newsworthy and what conclusions could be drawn. Furthermore, he was an outsider, with no connections or friendships to consider, whether political or personal, when stating his opinion on any given topic. This humorously cynical, maverick perspective proved contagious, as the news-buying public was ready for more than the brief, cookie-cutter wire reports from AP and Reuters that had long dominated the news. This increasing hunger for access, truth, and diversity of perspective was one of the primary catalysts for social medias immense growth over the last fifteen years. Media analyst David Kline points to "the widespread public dissatisfaction with the mainstream media, coupled with a general loss of faith in the country's established political institutions," as the major impetus of the so-called blog revolution. In short: though the cost and convenience of social media is certainly attractive to the public-at-large, if journalists in the mass media were doing their job there would never have been a need for PFT, The Drudge Report, or the Huffington Post. The growth of independent media blogs also inspired vital changes to the formatting and delivery of news. Foremost, these bloggers adapted the 24-hour news cycle, a concept rooted in cable television, to print media, allowing the public to follow the news as it happened. This live facet of print media improved not only the quantity but the quality of reporting, as it provided a platform for continuous news free from the diversions and constraints of television media. With no commercial breaks, flashy sets, or fast-paced montages, print media is inherently more informative, and the 24-hour print media cycle essentially forced broader, more expansive coverage. Other populist innovations followed, such as user comments and rankings, public archives, and electronic forums, creating powerful bonds between not only the writers of these blogs and their readership, but among the readership itself. User comments in particular are extremely effective against propaganda. One insightful comment in response to PFTs coverage of the Mendenhall controversy, for example, noted the hypocrisy evident in criticizing some players for making political statements while giving others a pass: The fact that I believe [Mendenhall] is totally irrelevant. Free speech means we should be allowed to discuss these things. If I can put up with Tim Tebows sermons, you can let Mendenhall speak without going ballistic about it.

At first overwhelmingly critical of this new platform, the traditional media, owned in the U.S. by six corporations, was forced to adopt the popular features of social media to avoid heavy losses in both wealth and influence. The method in which these six companies imitated, coopted, and now seek to corrupt these vital innovations is nothing original; in fact, it is a standard blueprint used by the power elite to remain in power. This does not point to a conspiracy theory, as detractors often accuse, but rather to the tenets of good business. On a basic level it is the idea that if you cant beat them, join themthen beat them, and is evident in capitalistic malfeasances like price fixing and insider trading, and in the co-option of nearly every popular movement throughout history, from Christs radical mysticism to Western democracy to the internet. The danger of this co-option in the context of the latter is fairly evident. Blog writers, perhaps exemplified by the witty, cynical, and opinionated Mike Florio, are popular because of their outsider persona. To the extent that it is genuine, this personal and proudly subjective voice forges a strong relationship between the reader and writer, liberating all those involved. The problems arise when the outsider persona is used fraudulently by those inside to provide a falsely dissenting voice, thus framing the public debate as A or B (but not C, D, or E). We can see this trend spreading now in the proliferation of staff blogs on mass media sites and the outright purchase of popular blogs by media giants. In the sporting world, weve seen the frequent, blatant, and often cheap imitation of ProFootballTalk by the mass media, with blogs written by staff columnists such as ESPNs NFL Nation or Sports Illustrateds Fan Nation rumor mill. The fact that these sites are maintained by paid employees undermines the spirit of the blog as an independent, individualistic enterprise, for though these blogs give the appearance of grassroots populism, they are written by the same press that has failed us for years, and funded by the same companies that have made fortunes by monopolizing our access to information. Not relegated to the world of sports, political blogs from CNN, The New York Times, FOX, and MSNBC, with fraudulently homespun names like The Caucus or Last Word, began to rival the truly independent political blogs that helped spur the New Covenant. In this way the mass media successfully transformed itself by imitating a populist movement, which, though unoriginal, is not inherently negative. After all, this transformation was necessary for their survival in a rapidly changing marketplace, and every person (corporation included) has the right to survival. The difficulty with these blogs from a marketing perspective is that they feel inauthentic, and provide an inferior product in terms of both content and entertainment. Though its not particularly difficult for the power elite to create a social media campaign within the structure of their traditional outlets, it is not as easy to appear as a credibly independent and maverick voice. Its the same reason that Christian rock often seems like a cheap imitation of authentic rock and

roll: it mimics a popular style to serve an ideology, rather than creating something original and honest unto itself. The best way to circumvent this reality is to influence an already popular maverick voice; bribing them with money, security, and other perks to use their built-in credibility for corporate gain. Bob Dylans authentic conversion to Christianity did more to spread the Gospel to Americas youth than all of the so-called Christian rock bands combined because he already had their trust. This method is used unfailingly by the power elite in all facets of life. In the world of politics, it is bribing officials already in office rather than running for election. In pro football, its plucking a highly-sought free agent from a rival team; likely overpaying for the talent, yet doubling its value in the loss it provides their competitors. In the media, the rights-purchase of PFT by NBC Sports, a wholly owned subsidiary of General Electric, is an excellent example of this co-option, as it allows Florios unique voice and rich personality (to quote NBC executives) to be used and controlled by the second largest corporation in the entire world, according to Forbes magazine in 2010. The danger inherent in such partnerships became reality during the bin Laden coverage, as we saw an alarming journalistic homogeny among mass and social media, coupled with a vicious attempt to silence contrarian opinions by these new corporate-social hybrids. No better an example was PFTs coverage of Rashard Mendenhalls Twitter comments, which served to denigrate and dismiss Mendenhall through excessive and mean-spirited ridicule. To begin, the full text of Mendenhalls comments on May 2nd, altogether sixty-seven words spaced over four entries on Twitter, stated:

"What kind of person celebrates death? It's amazing how people can HATE a man they have never even heard speak. We've only heard one side ... I believe in God. I believe we're ALL his children. And I believe HE is the ONE and ONLY judge."

"We'll never know what really happened. I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style. "
Only hours after Mendenhall made these entries, Mike Florio wrote the first of what would be ten articles over the next nine days on the substance of and reaction to Mendenhalls comments. The articles, written by Florio and staff writer Michael David Smith, are dismissive of Mendenhalls beliefs to the point of inciting hatred, using divisive terms like crazy, bizarre, and stupid in regard to Mendenhalls opinions. Additionally, the coverage tends to distort Mendenhalls words, such as when Florio states that Mendenhall expresses sympathy for bin

Laden, and grossly misrepresents the evidence in regard to both bin Ladens and the U.S. governments roles in the 9/11 attacks. For example, in response to Mendenhalls statement that Weve only heard one side, Mike Florio inaccurately explained that Bin Laden admits to masterminding and funding the plot; he has bragged about it. Hes not entitled to the presumption of innocence after admitting guilt. This is patently incorrect, as bin Laden specifically denied his involvement in the attacks in a September 2001 interview with al Jazeera. Additionally, many critics believe the much-touted confession tape is fake, citing poor video quality and a lack of resemblance to bin Laden, as well as minute tells such as the mispronunciation of alleged hijackers names, using the wrong hand to write, and wearing gold rings in violation of Muslim law. Regardless, anyone who does not speak Arabic has literally never heard bin Laden speak, and has thus only heard one side. These inaccuracies raise concerns about the extent to which PFT fueled the controversy through the course and content of their reporting. Its clear that Mendenhalls comments created a stir among his (as of May 2nd) roughly 8,000 Twitter followers and that some controversy would have existed without any reporting by PFT. However, PFTs readership, which consistently marks over 1 million unique visitors and 20 million page views per month, greatly exceeds that of Mendenhalls, raising the possibility that PFT played a major role in stoking the controversy. In fact, it was not until after PFT had written two articles on the subject in a twelve-hour time frame that Mendenhalls name began trending on Twitter as a hot topic. The second article, written by staff contributor Michael David Smith, was particularly troublesome, as it openly berated Mendenhalls opinions, omitted key pieces of information, and attempted to invalidate Mendenhalls statements through an Appeal to Authority. Indeed, the entire basis of the article was to broadcast a refutation of Mendenhalls opinions by Steelers owner Art Rooney, whod released a personal statement on the Steelers website earlier that morning. In the press release, Rooney said that it was hard to explain or even comprehend Mendenhalls comments, which Michael David Smith then gratuitously characterized as crazy remarks. My first contention is with Rooneys comments themselves. In all team sports and especially in football, unity and chemistry are vital to winning games, and publicly criticizing teammates (known as throwing someone under the bus) is an indicator of poor character and sportsmanship. It is rather unbelievable then that Rooney would, unprompted, publicly bash the opinions of one of his players. To contrast, players who are arrested on criminal charges are often afforded far more respect, with a typical management response some variation of We are dealing with this internally, and will withhold comment until we have all of the information. Why was Rooney not content to answer this same way, if at all? Is having a contrarian opinion somehow worse than a criminal transgression?

The answer to this question may lie with the Rooney family themselves. Arts father Dan Rooney, who remains majority owner of the Steelers, is an ardent supporter of Barack Obama, and was awarded with an Ambassadorship to Ireland immediately after Obama won the presidential election. Could it be that Rooney threw Mendenhall under the bus due to his family ties with the Obama administration, which has benefitted greatly from the positive flood of PR in the aftermath of bin Ladens death? Indeed, unity from the left is of primary importance to the Obama administration as it continues to adopt an increasingly conservative policy, and its greatest concern following the successful military mission was to limit any liberal backlash; especially from a virally potent social media. This relationship between the Rooney and Obama family is well-known, and has been noted in several prior PFT articles, yet there is no mention of Rooneys ties to Obama anywhere in Smiths article. Its a noticeable absence, for the acknowledgement of this link and any implications therein is precisely what we have come to expect from the independent blog media. PFT itself has a long history of making these kind of connections, yet in regard to Rooneys comments there was no recognition of any conflicts of interest (real or perceived) anywhere in their reporting. My third contention with this article, and with Michael David Smiths reporting of the incident in general, is the gratuitous slander of Mendenhalls opinions, including frequent and unnecessary name-calling. Smith uses weighted descriptors like crazy and bizarre to describe Mendenhalls opinions on the World Trade Center, creating the idea that they are without any scientific or factual basis, which as we will explore later, is absolutely incorrect. Furthermore, Smith continually implies that Mendenhall said something deserving of apology, writing that Mendenhall stuck his foot in his mouth in expressing his viewpoint, and calling these views offensive. Coupled with PFTs large readership, this negative reporting helped fan the flames of controversy; fueling an already patriotic American public with unnecessary vitriol. Thus, it was no surprise that four hours later Mike Florio posted an article entitled, Mendenhalls remarks grow legs, in which Florio describes the growing backlash and raises the possibility that Mendenhall could lose his job with the Steelers if the controversy continued to linger. Florio further claims it was Rooneys press release that caused the story to become even larger, without mentioning his own sites role in the controversy. It is another noticeable omission, because although Florio gained plenty of popularity by exposing conflicts of interest in the sports media giants (notably and frequently ESPN), it is clear that this disclosure does not extend to his own website. Not two hours after that, Florio posted another article regarding the Mendenhall controversy, this one reporting that Mendenhall had deleted his statement regarding the World Trade Center from Twitter. The article further predicts that football fans - particularly Steelers fans - will continue to seethe at least until Mendenhall provides a full and complete apology. Though couched as an intuition, Florios statement could be perceived as a subtle attempt to

incite further controversy. This may in itself be cynical, yet forty-five minutes later a writer known as NBCSports.com posted another article with Mendenhalls name in the headline, in a short teaser advertising Florios daily live show. Though the show covered several topics, it was Mendenhalls name that got the headline attention, helping to further the perception that this was a controversy spinning out of control. A primary beneficiary of this controversy, of course, is PFT itself. Now that the public is accustomed to the 24 hour news cycle, there is considerable pressure on newsmakers to continually provide product. Like a sugar shortage at the donut store, no money can be made unless there is product on the shelves. Though the owners of media would prefer that significant events came at nice, even intervals like their shipments of raw material; the truth is that history reveals a tendency toward long periods of inaction punctuated by brief and eventful moments in time. Thus, the media must find ways to continually provide a product that is about as predictable as the weather. One excellent way is to stretch out in-depth analysis of a topic over a period of time, devoting several articles to a number of sub-topics. Florio is a master of this valid and insightful technique, especially in regard to legal matters within the NFL, which can be both jargon-filled and complex. As a former labor lawyer, Florio uses his understanding of the legal system to provide excellent coverage in matters like the Collective Bargaining Agreement between players and owners, as well as the inevitable arrests, lawsuits, and trials that seem to accompany the young, rich, and famous. In fact, the sites popularity first peaked during the Michael Vick dogfighting fiasco, in which Florio provided unparalleled and unique analysis of the case from a local, state, federal, and, of course, football perspective. A less credible way to provide continuous news coverage is to actually create news itself, whether through sensationalism, the manipulation of controversy, or the outright fabrication of a story. This was one of the primary criticisms of social media in its infancy: that, in providing such a quick turnaround of news, vital journalistic principles like primary sources, secondary verifications, and requests for comment would be weakened or diminished in favor of unconfirmable rumor and endless conjecture; in short, what we have seen for years on cable news networks and other mass media outlets. Thus it is not surprising that the blogs now controlled by the mass media have begun to adopt some of the less credible attempts at providing continuous news, and PFTs coverage of the Rashard Mendenhall controversy continues to be a prime example. On May 4th, the next day in our timeline, PFT posted a whopping four articles on the Mendenhall incident, bringing the grand total to nine articles over two and a half days. Yet again, a writer known as NBCSports.com used Mendenhalls name as the headline teaser for that days live show, in which Florio reiterated the possibility that Mendenhall could be cut from the Steelers for his opinions.

The most newsworthy of these four articles, in which Michael David Smith responds to a recent Mendenhall blog entitled Clarification, is also the most distorted and biting. Smith finds contention with nearly all of Mendenhalls statements, adding refutations after each excerpt in a clearly adversarial manner. After Mendenhall explained that his comments do not make him pro-bin Laden, anti-US, or even anti-military, Smith responded, Still, Mendenhall stands by his opinion that people who celebrated the death of bin Laden were wrong, seeming to raise contention with Mendenhalls use of the word murder in describing bin Ladens death. Smiths biased summary ignores the fact that a citizen can be pro-military and yet support democratic, fair trials in lieu of political assassinations. And lets be clear here, death by a covert Special Forces raid is an assassination; the fact that we are on the other side does not make this less true. Smith similarly paints Mendenhalls statement that he wasnt questioning bin Ladens evil acts, as hypocritical due to Mendenhalls belief in a 9/11 conspiracy that is separate from, and bigger than, al Qaeda. Smiths inference again subverts what is essentially a wellreasoned and valid argument: though bin Laden is a murderous, fundamentalist monster, it is highly implausible based on the available evidence that bin Laden acted alone in the 9/11 attacks, as well explore later. The article concludes with an excerpt of Mendenhalls apology, followed by commentary from Smith implying that the apology and explanation would not be enough to quell any controversy, which at this point in time included severe insults and threats directed towards Mendenhall by individual users of social media. Though the article quotes large portions of text from Mendenhalls blog entry, Smiths comments serve to distort Mendenhalls words, creating a straw man to attack in order to further the controversy. Not surprisingly, the article also arguably omits Mendenhalls most conciliatory and unifying words:

Everything that Ive said is with the intent of expressing a wide array of ideas and generating open and honest discussions, something I believe we as American citizens should be able to do. Most opinions will not be fully agreed upon and are not meant to be. However, I believe every opinion should be respected or at least given some thought.
Though the omission is not obvious, it is clear that publicizing this reasonable appeal to liberty and democracy would only serve to quell the controversy, thus eliminating a popular football storyline in a slow news week. For NBCs owners General Electric, who are well represented in every level of government, the stakes were even higher, for the bin Laden story served as an incredibly potent distraction from real news, such as the partial core meltdown of a GE-built nuclear power plant in Fukushima Japan, the endless war and profiteering in the Middle

East, and the inevitable collapse of the American economy; not to mention the two potentially dangerous objects in our solar system of which the American public is appallingly uninformed. Though PFTs intent in stoking the controversy may have simply been to increase readership in a slow news week, and Smiths commentary may have sprung merely from his own personal biases on the subject, the implication made by this coverage is that opposing opinions are unhealthy and offensive. This directly contradicts the spirit of democracy as outlined by great thinkers like Aristotle, who said that the basis of democracy is liberty, or Thomas Jefferson, who noted that:

Id rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Jefferson was concerned about the co-option of democracy by the power elite, saying Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. On the morning of May 5th news broke that Rashard Mendenhall had been dropped as a sponsor by Champion Apparel, who further decided that they were not required to pay out the remaining four year balance of his endorsement contract. In a story posted on ProFootballTalk ten minutes later, Michael David Smith explicitly supported Champions decision, and even more ludicrously, commended Champion for invoking the freedom of speech in their press release. Smith continued to insult both Mendenhall and his opinions, describing Mendenhalls apology as a step in the right direction, (as in, still insufficient) and his belief in a 9/11 conspiracy as both bizarre and offensive. Once again, Smiths reporting served to reinforce the idea that Mendenhalls comments were incorrect, and worse yet, that he deserved negative criticism for expressing them in public. It is a concept Florio endorses in his first article on the subject, explaining that:

We fully believe in free speech. Mendenhall has the right to say whatever he wants. But others also have the right to react to what he says. -mike florio
With all due respect to Mr. Florio, this is a meager understanding of what freedom of speech represents. The true beauty of this freedom is not that you can say whatever you want, but rather that you can express what you believe freely without repercussion. This does not entail some mob rule mentality as Florio implies in the above quote, where the majority has the

10

right to verbally abuse the minority for having a contrarian view. The spirit of free speech is that we are actually tolerant to what people say; not merely that we are free to insult those we disagree with. It is as Noam Chomsky says:

If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you dont like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If youre in favor of freedom of speech, that means youre in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. -NOAM CHOMSKY
This spirit of tolerance is desperately missing in American discourse, and ironically, seems to stem from the well-intentioned yet misguided concept of political correctness. At first a movement to eliminate hate speech; notably racial, sexist, and homophobic slurs, political correctness was distorted to include not only speech but peoples beliefs, henceforth serving as a potent cultural whitewash. Gradually, the right to free speech gave way to the duty to not offend anyone, which included not only racist and sexist remarks but also any controversial ideas such as the factual analysis of 9/11, or comparisons of the Nazi regime and Holocaust to any current government or genocide. Thus, it may indeed seem bizarre to the American public that Mendenhall would have a hard time believing a plane could take a plane down demolition style, because that idea is simply not reflected in the American media. When the topic is discussed, it is generally raised to belittle any theorists as crazy, off-base, or out of touch with the facts, as Mendenhall recently found out. This is nothing less than censorship through ridicule, as it discourages rational and open discourse; the supposed cornerstone of republican democracy as envisioned over 2,000 years ago. Let us embark then on some rational and open discourse about the 9/11 attacks, focusing on the evidence as much as possible. The official story, of course, is that an explosion caused by jet fuel started uncontrollable fires within the two tallest WTC buildings, weakening the steel beams and causing collapse. Painted in the media as an unforeseen disaster, in reality the architects and engineers of the WTC specifically designed the buildings to withstand such disasters as hurricanes, plane crashes, and fires resulting from plane crashes. In fact, in the 1960s, it was a fairly obvious concern to both design professionals and the public at large, and a 1964 investigation concluded that:

11

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 or DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.
In 1993 the head structural engineer for the WTC, John Skilling, indicated that not only would the buildings withstand a plane crash, but that the engineers had also taken a jet-fuel fire into account, noting that there would be a horrendous fire, while acknowledging that the building structure would still be there. As late as January 2001, Frank DeMartini, the on-site construction manager for the WTC and himself a 9/11 victim, echoed the comments of the WTCs first chief structural engineer, Leslie Robertson, saying The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. More specifically, in response to criticisms from business rivals alleging that the proposed WTC buildings were unsound, Richard Roth, a named partner in the firm responsible for designing the buildings, fired off an angry press release, claiming that the WTC would be sixteen times stiffer than their conventional skyscrapers, noting:

Because of its configuration, which is essentially that of a steel beam 209 deep, the towers are actually far less daring structurally than a conventional building such as the empire state building where the spine or braced area of the building is far smaller in relation to its height.
There were also precautions made in the steel itself. The science of metallurgy had become incredibly technological by the mid-20th Century, with a number of high-grade alloys specifically designed for use in construction. As such, the steel used in the buildings structure was treated to withstand high temperatures. To be certified, all components had to pass a number of quality tests, including ASTM E119; a test that determines, among other things, a materials melting point. In the aftermath of 9/11, Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories, one of the firms responsible for the analysis of metal components used in the WTC, penned an incredibly wellsupported (and surprisingly honest) response to the idea posed in the media that the metal beams in the WTC somehow melted, causing the collapse:

12

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F. Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, Im sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers.
To understand why confusion still abounds, despite fairly straightforward evidence that illustrates how many engineering professionals also have a hard time believing a plane could take down a building demolition style, it is necessary to look closer at the Dr. Brown mentioned in the above quote. Hyman Brown first appeared on NBC (which, as we remember, is owned by the second largest corporation in the world, General Electric) in an interview with Tom Brokaw shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Brokaw introduced Brown as the architect of the World Trade Center, and he has since been alternately described in the media as chief engineer, engineer, project engineer, and construction manager of the WTC site. According to an investigation by Patrick Marks, Hyman Brown has held none of the above positions. In fact, Marks found that Brown did not work at the WTC until after construction was completed, and even then had a very small role in construction operations. According to Brown himself, when pressed by Marks, It was my first job out of college, I was 25 years old, and I was the guy who sharpened the pencils. ...It was my job to open the trailer and make coffee in the morning. Yet this is the same Hyman Brown who claimed authority to make the statement, on September 11th on NBC, that steel melts, and 90,850 liters of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire." Brown states this despite the fact that the designers and engineers had long anticipated the effect that jet fuel would have on the building, and engineered that possibility into their plans. Marks raises the excellent question of why NBC even chose to interview Dr. Brown on September 11th, a time when most of America was glued to the TV in shock and looking for answers. Why did NBC interview a man who has not held any significant position in the

13

designing or engineering of the WTC, and whose statements directly contradict the statements of the real architects and engineers of the complex? I believe it relates to a concept posed by Hitler in Mein Kampf that the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention: it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. In this way, innovations like the sound-byte and 24-hour news cycle were exploited to inundate the public with a very specific and narrow view of events from early on after the 9/11 attacks, creating an illusory Potemkin village through their careful presentation of information. This information was then repeated over and over until it was true; at that point, those attempting to examine the inconsistencies present in the official story were labeled as idiotic, crazy, or un-American. As to the latter, there is a perception that examining the 9/11 attacks somehow demeans the victims of the attacks, and/or offends the living family of those victims. This explanation conveniently ignores that some of the most vocal opponents of the official 9/11 story are the families of victims, many of whom feel they have been lied to at worst and runaround at best. The family of victims of United Flight 93, for example, fought for over a year for the right to hear the flights black box voice recording. Under intense pressure, the government relented and allowed the families a single listen, without the ability to take notes, and even then the final three minutes of the flight recording were inexplicably missing. Nevertheless, demanding a true and honest investigation into 9/11 is not un-American, nor does it demean the victims of the attacks. To the contrary, discovering the truth and holding the guilty parties accountable for their actions does true justice for the victims, the same way a legal conviction of a serial killer provides justice for the victims and their families. To claim otherwise is patently illogical, and confuses the issue. Mendenhall and the great majority of Americans who remain cynical of the governments explanations for 9/11 are not supportive of the attacks in any way, and in fact are persuaded to research the available evidence based on a strong feeling of responsibility toward an open, healthy democracy. Admittedly, however, thus far we have two sides of experts presenting contradictory views. On one hand we have the engineers, architects, and construction managers of the WTC who believe the buildings could withstand one, if not many, plane crashes without collapse. On the other hand we have Dr. Brown and an assorted cast of professors who claim that jet fuel could indeed melt steel beams and cause sudden, vertical collapse. Though Dr. Brown clearly has credibility issues, it could be argued that his opposition was motivated to protect against any liability arising from the attacks, and ultimately which expert to believe remains a matter of opinion. Further analysis, however, continues to cast dispersion on Dr. Browns steel-melting theory of collapse. One such analysis compares the WTC fires with other severe skyscraper fires.

14

The conclusions are astounding: though there have been several skyscraper fires that were far more severe than the WTC fires, no other skyscrapers have collapsed due to fire. In fact, the three buildings that collapsed on 9/11 are the only three buildings in history that have collapsed due to fire, and all after burning for less than one hour. To contrast, the fire at One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia in 1991, which was described by local officials as the most significant fire in this century and burned for roughly eighteen hours before finally being extinguished, never collapsed. The Caracas Tower in Venezuela in 2004 burned for more than seventeen hours and never collapsed. The First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles in 1988 burned for nearly four hours without collapse. The Hotel Mandarin Oriental in Beijing, China in 2009, which was literally engulfed in flames, never collapsed. Even the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain in 2005, which burned for over twenty hours and was built with reinforced concrete rather than traditional steel beams, did not collapse upon itself in the manner of the WTC buildings, though it did lose large chunks of the top ten floors. This is a notable difference, and the perception that the WTC towers fell like a controlled demolition is by no means an exaggeration considering the way the buildings fell, vertically, at nearly free-fall speed. The mysterious destruction of WTC Tower 7, which incidentally held a wealth of government files including ongoing financial investigations by the SEC, is called a textbook implosion by 9/11 researchers in the way the building fell suddenly and vertically, collapsed in less than seven seconds (at nearly free-fall speed), and produced a neat pile of rubble within its own footprint. As to the main towers, though forensic evidence is less definitive, there is a wealth of information suggesting that there were explosives detonated inside of the WTC towers after the planes hit. Investigators point not only to the incredibly even free-falls of both buildings, but to other minute inconsistencies such as the volume and mushroom shape of the dust cloud, shredded steel and pulverized concrete consistent with demolition, forensic metallurgy indicating the presence of explosives, seismic evidence from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory showing large secondary explosions after each plane crash, and the appearance of strange horizontal jets of smoke and fire consistent with ignition caps known to experts as demolition squibs. Though none of this evidence provides a proverbial smoking gun in itself, it is powerful collectively, and tends to corroborate eyewitness testimony indicating a series of explosions inside each building separate from the plane crash. The explosions were most notable in regard to the South Tower, as a full three minutes passed between the jet crash and the secondary explosion(s) that caused the tower to tumble. Much of this shocking and compelling testimony was gathered not from civilians, but from the qualified opinions of firefighter and emergency medical personnel called to respond to the disaster.

15

Just as with the black box from Flight 93, the government initially attempted to block the transcripts of these testimonies, including fire department radio transmissions from 9/11 and the 12,000 pages of interviews with emergency personnel after the disaster. Known as the Oral Histories and released by the NY Times in 2005, these testimonies reveal that most of the emergency first-responders believed at the time that there were explosions going off inside the WTC buildings separate from the plane crashes. In addition to the explosions heard by many people present during the attacks, several eyewitnesses claim to have seen flashes consistent with detonators used with explosions. Stephen Gregory, a Communications Commissioner with the FDNY, said he saw low-level flashes, and claimed he and a co-worker thought it looked like a planned demolition. Louie Cacchioli, a firefighter inside WTC 1, said he heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb. It was such a loud noise, it knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator. Karin DeShoure, Captain of EMS Batallian 46, was even more descriptive:

Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash, came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building. -Karin deshoure
And yet, Rashard Mendenhall is crazy for being skeptical of the official 9/11 story. Despite all of this evidence, Rashard Mendenhall is an idiot (as he was often called in talk radio and social media) for questioning the official line of events, and should be bullied for expressing his right to an unpopular opinion. How did we so quickly get to that point? Why has all the evidence and information I have listed, which is admittedly only one side of the story, been so thoroughly repressed by the American media? One obvious answer is that despite the appearance of diversity, nearly all of the newspapers, TV channels, book publishers, and even film and music companies are owned by six corporations; namely, General Electric, FOX, Disney, CBS, Time Warner, and Viacom. Ultimately, this elite group determines what is allowed on TV, from news to programming to advertising. A system of de facto censorship results from this consolidation of power which eliminates the

16

need for outright propaganda, for it is these select few who determine access to all of the outlets of communication that mythically belong in the public domain. For example, activist Kalle Lasn, through a non-profit media awareness campaign called Commercial Breakers, has fought for years for the right to air thirty second commercials about the environmental dangers of over-consumption. Though he has more than enough funding for network commercial spots, Lasns group has nevertheless been shut out by the U.S. mass media, including FOX and MTV. In Canada, Lasn has been embroiled in a decade-long court battle for the right to buy commercial air time. Meanwhile, commercials by other non-profits frequently air on these networks at their discretion, including a controversial anti-abortion ad by a nonprofit group called Focus on the Family that ran during the 2010 Super Bowl. That same year, ads for the non-profits PETA, MoveOn.org, and United Church of Christ were denied by CBS, as well as an ad for the gay dating website Mancrunch.com. Even in advertising, we see only what they want us to see. In the news world, this corporate influence on media is just as extensive. General Electric, for example, has shown a consistent pattern of interference with NBC news programs in order to further their corporate interests. The book Unreliable Sources details several instances of interference with news reporting, including what by all appearances was a three day, fourteen minute advertisement for a GE Breast Cancer Detection machine on NBC Nightly News that was not covered at all by the other networks. According to Lawrence Grossman, NBCs News Chief from 1984-1998, NBC News personnel were told they worked for GE and were discouraged from reporting anything that put the company in a negative light. Among the topics prohibited from broadcast is GEs horrendous environmental record, which shows a consistent pattern of illegal chemical dumping, toxic and radioactive leaks, and a blatant disregard for local, state, and national air pollution laws. They have been sued for illegally dumping poly-carbonated biphenyls (PCBs) in Alabama, and faced litigation for dumping over 500,000 pounds of PCBs in the Hudson River in New York. At least partially responsible for over 70 Superfund disaster sites, GE has been fined heavily by the EPA and OSHA, and was convicted of defrauding the Department of Defense in 1991. In addition, the GE-built nuclear plant in Mexico has dumped 2.5 million gallons of toxic waste water into the Gulf of Mexico according to the 1993 Business and Society Review. More recently, the aforementioned Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan suffered a partial core meltdown, causing radiation contamination throughout Japan and Southeast Asia. Conceived and constructed by GE companies, the reactor design caused a prominent scientist on the project to quit in protest over safety concerns, yet the reactor was installed as planned. The unwillingness to abide by the laws of our country shows a blatant disregard for the democratic process, and shows GE to be culpable in many of the worst environmental disasters of our era, including the outright contamination of our natural water supplies. Driven by an

17

insatiable profit motive and aggressive bottom line, GE looks to cut costs (i.e. make profit) in every aspect of their business, and all of these transgressions listed are merely outgrowths of their corporate mission. Furthermore, the similarities between this corporate mission and neo-conservative fiscal policy are far from coincidental considering the men who sit atop the companys board, described by Douglas Kellner as a conservative cross-section of the power elite-- corporate executives, bankers, retired cabinet members and generals, an ivy league president and several ivy league board members. He notes multiple ties with financial institutions like Morgan Bank, Citicorp, and Manufacturers Hanover, as well as board members that serve on media industry boards such as Harper and Row, Reuters, and the Washington Post. Thus, it should be no surprise that GEs tax division, which contains several former Treasury and IRS officials, uses aggressive and creative accounting practices to pay as few taxes as possible. In 2010, GE did not pay a single cent in taxes, despite a five billion dollar domestic profit. In fact, the company claimed a tax benefit of over three million dollars. This is nothing less than the theft of government funds that could be used for the public good in an endless number of ways, including education, healthcare, and the environment. As Len Burman of the Tax Policy Center summarized, there are corporations that view their tax departments as a profit center, and the effects on public policy can be negative. And yet when President Obama began his long-promised corporate tax overhaul, he chose Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric, as his business liaison, saying of Immelt, He understands what it takes for America to compete in the global economy. As the second largest corporation in the world, with an accumulated off-shore profit of 92 billion dollars, it seems that GE indeed knows how to not only compete in, but dominate the global marketplace. As weve already illustrated, however, GEs domination is directly tied to policies that undermine the public good, often in violation of national laws and corporate ethics, and their global business practices are no exception. One obvious way in which GE amasses enormous profits is by outsourcing jobs to countries with more relaxed environmental and labor laws, directly affecting millions of American workers. In the last ten years GE has cut an alarming 20% of its American workforce, much of that work going off-shore. Here the concept of a global corporation must be examined in and of itself, because it can be argued that a global corporation has no allegiance to any country or creed and is ultimately beholden only to its own corporate mission: money. Furthermore, there is evidence that GEs mission is quite literally founded upon the tenets of socialist fascism. This is evident from the very beginning of GEs global initiative after World War I, when General Electric created and ran Russias electrical infrastructure in support of Lenins communist regime. GE was also a major proponent of Roosevelts New Deal programs and supported Hitlers rise to power, both favoring a corporate-led socialist state.

18

Anthony Sutton, in Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, describes the ways in which GE not only supported the corporate socialist movements in Russia and Germany, but actively worked to destroy the possibility of democracy in these countries. Of particular interest is Owen D. Young, then chairman of the board of GE, who was also on the chair of the German megacorporations AEG and Osram, as well as the Executive Committee of the Radio Corporation of America. As chief U.S. delegate in post-WWI reparations discussions, Young authored the Young Plan for German Reparations, which helped GE consolidate power in Germany by destabilizing the democratic regime. In America, we find that FDRs much-heralded New Deal was based off of the Swope Plan written by then GE president Gerard Swope. Both Swope and Young had intimate ties to Roosevelt, and the Roosevelt family was at that time one of GEs largest shareholders. Incidentally, the New Deal helped GE profit immensely through the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which eliminated anti-trust laws and further allowed the company to consolidate power. This exploitation of the Russian, American, and German governments shows not only an interest in guiding government affairs to maximize company profit, but also a clear disregard for national allegiances. As Anthony Sutton notes:

we find both Owen D. Young and Gerard Swope of General Electric tied to the rise of Hitlerism and the suppression of German democracy. That General Electric directors are to be found in each of these three distinct historical categories i.e., the development of the Soviet Union, the creation of Roosevelt's New Deal, and the rise of Hitlerism suggests how elements of Big Business are keenly interested in the socialization of the world, for their own purposes and objectives, rather than the maintenance of the impartial market place in a free society. -ANTHONY SUTTON
By the time Hitler seized power, five GE directors sat on the board of the German manufacturer AEG, including both Swope and Young. During this time, AEG directly funded Hitlers rise to power, including a $60,000 donation to Hitler in 1933. Having played a prominent role in loaning Germany money for reparations (that were then given back to the Allies), General Electric owned nearly 30% of the shares of German manufacturing giant AEG and 16% of electrical manufacturer Osram, and were in perfect position to profit from Hitlers Four Year Plan, a corporate socialist doctrine similar to the New Deal. Manufacturing in Germany roared as Hitler built up his war machine, and the primary financial beneficiaries were a small group of multinational corporations and American lenders

19

that provided the Nazi Party with the capital necessary for military mobilization. These American corporations continued their support of the Nazi Regime throughout the war despite Hitlers violent anti-Jewish rhetoric, putting profit above ideology, nation, and human life as they played both sides of the conflict. Even more troubling is that GEs partners in Germany escaped the bombing damage that befell other German manufacturers, indicating a considerable corporate influence over Allied military strategy despite their ties to the Nazi Party. General Electrics interference with public policy to maximize profit continues to this day. In 1992, for example, GE was charged with using $8 million in US public funds to bribe an Israeli General, and was ordered to pay $70 million by the US Department of Justice. In 2010 the SEC fined General Electric $23 million for allegedly bribing Iraqi officials in order to win lucrative municipal contracts. A recent Wikileaks uncovered that the Prime Minister of Spain was personally involved in granting GE a lucrative military helicopter engine contract worth more than 250 million dollars, at the behest of the American government. Once we accept that corporations are driven solely by the profit motive, which often supersedes any national or ideological allegiance, the importance of corporate media control becomes obvious. And so are the results: despite GEs horrid environmental record, the company is often ranked highly in consumer environmental rankings and has even won several awards for outstanding environmental stewardship, including being named as a sustainability leader by the Dow Jones in 2009, and more laughably, appearing on a list of the worlds most ethical companies the following year. This is precisely how, without a standing army or book-burnings, the mass media serves to successfully suppress ideas on a large scale. It is exactly as Umberto Eco noted after the fall of Kruschev in the U.S.S.R.:

Today it is only in the most backward countries that fascist generals, in carrying out a coup d'etat, still use tanks. The heads of the radio and television were replaced; the army wasn't called out. Today a country belongs to the person who controls communications.
This idea is well-detailed in Edward Herman and Noam Chomskys Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, which details the ways in which mass media influences and distorts public opinion in a democratic society. Among these five filters of propaganda is an idea weve covered quite thoroughly in this essay, known as flak. Flak, as Chomsky notes, refers to negative responses to a media statement or program, and in this new era of social media refers not just to the mass media but to individual

20

statements like those made on Twitter, Facebook, and personal blogs. Thus, the recent controversy that has embroiled Rashard Mendenhall is not unique, but simply a new twist on a well-established blueprint for control in a democratic society. Another media filter that is well-represented in our coverage of the Mendenhall controversy is what Herman and Chomsky call the Sourcing of Mass Media News, which refers to the powerful access the corporate-media conglomerates have compared to the average citizen, explaining that:

In effect, the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access by their contribution to reducing the media's costs of acquiring the raw materials of, and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become "routine" news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers.
Though Manufacturing Consent was published in the late 1980s, long before the advent of social media and even the internet, the bulk of their analysis holds true today. Of course, now that social media outlets like blogs and Twitter have improved public access to the gates, it is sometimes not enough to simply ignore dissenting voices, and this is where the criticism of personal opinions becomes vital, as we saw with PFTs reporting of the Rashard Mendenhall controversy. Thus the acquisition of PFT by NBC Sports, and more broadly the cooption and imitation of social media by corporations like GE, is part of a plan designed to reconsolidate the power lost during the social media revolution. Once power is consolidated, voices like Mendenhalls wont be heard as easily, and were already starting to see it in federal legislation such as COICA 2.0, also known as the Internet Censorship Bill. Until then, General Electric and the other five major media corporations must use their assets to criticize any dissenting and potentially dangerous voices, and there is no better outlet than the co-opted social media to achieve this end, as theyve already built up trust as independent and maverick sources of information, and are more easily believed. In fairness, I cannot condemn Mike Florio for selling the exclusive rights of his website to General Electric. Though the loss is significant to me on a personal level, Florio earned through sweat-equity the right to do whatever he wanted with his creation, and carries the serious responsibility of providing for his family. To that end, Im happy that he has found success in this partnership, which in addition to money has earned him a myriad of excellent perks, such as a daily live internet show, the right to use pictures of NFL players on his website, increased readership, improved travel and lodging accommodations, increased access to teams and

21

players, paid trips to the Super Bowl, and perhaps most importantly, a primetime TV analyst career on NBC Sports excellent-yet-awkwardly-titled Football Night in America. All of these mean great things for Florio and his family, and I can in no way denigrate that. In fact, we all have made compromises for monetary gain, from myself all the way up to the corporate directors of General Electric. It is what Howard Zinn meant when he said:

If the world is destroyed it will be a white-collar crime, done in a businesslike way, by large numbers of individuals involved in a chain of actions, each one having a touch of innocence.
What matters, of course, is the degree to which we remain free. We must choose our allegiances carefully, and furthermore, understand that whatever organization, nation, ideology, or religion we pledge allegiance to can and will be co-opted. Thus, the safest course is to remain individualistic and unaffiliated; freeing yourself from the hearsay of culture and ideology by investigating the world for yourself, and resigning yourself to the necessity of change while still encouraging and participating in cooperative public discourse. Its a tall order and heavy burden, but it is also the difference between a healthy democracy and what we have before us now. Just like in our personal lives, we get back from our country precisely what we have put in. Further investigation into these topics may cause you to conclude, as others have, that the entire war on terror is a neatly-presented faade designed to deceive the American public, and that the media is directly involved in its perpetuation. Indeed, there is significant evidence that government claims of an al Qaeda terrorist network are vastly overblown at best, and fabricated at worst. There is a mountain of evidence connecting bin Laden to the CIA, with contact reported as recently as the summer of 2001. There is also evidence that the plane that hit the Pentagon was in reality a missile, as outlined in the independent 9/11 documentary Loose Change 9/11: Second Edition. All of this may sound unlikely and delusional to most Americans, but that does not mean these theories are incorrect. It doesnt mean that theyre correct either; only that we need more investigation to determine the true causes of these attacks, which can only be achieved through open and honest discourse. It is also worth questioning whether the official explanation could be considered delusional based on the existing evidence, for as Noam Chomsky once said, Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune. My advice is simply to put in the work and trust yourself.