In 1949, after ten Hollywood screenwriters collectively declined to answer questions about their political sympathies to a Congressional Committee, they were fired and blacklisted. Thus began the sordid campaign to purge the film business of socialist influence.
Back then although many writers suffered, they retained their dignity, if not their salaries and today some are even celebrated as martyrs. The blacklist back then was very simple: if you were red, you were dead, at least as far as Hollywood was concerned.
In my lifetime, I’ve seen a complete reversal in the state of journalism. When I was in high school, becoming an investigative reporter was considered a noble calling. During Watergate nobody questioned the realities of government conspiracies. They were on the front page every day. Many newspapers spent a lot of money investigating stories of government misconduct.
Today, the media is almost exclusively focused on the minor trials and tribulations of film and sports celebrities. Newspapers no longer invest fortunes in investigative reporting, and, in fact, if they discover prospective young employees hold unconventional political views, those prospective employees likely won’t be getting hired. There’s a dividing line and once you cross it, you won’t be invited to the party, unless, of course, you’re part of the controlled opposition, like David Icke or Alex Jones, and even then, you’re just there to provoke ridicule and brand conspiracy theory as crazy.
Right after Watergate it was revealed the CIA was producing hundreds of books every year. Today, they’re probably producing hundreds of websites, including most of the so-called conspiracy sites. The purpose of these sites is to take real conspiracies (9/11) and mix them up with crazy conspiracies (we never landed on the moon). This campaign has been going on for decades and it’s obviously a success because conspiracy theory is now practically synonymous with insanity.
We have some websites, like the Huffington Post, Alternet, and Counterpunch, all of which purport to be providing an alternative to the official government line, but on none of these sites will you ever find a serious investigation into the anomalies of the official narrative of 9/11. Such talk is banned from polite society, in fact, and any writer who espouses such views will not be allowed to attend the party. It’s another blacklist, but this time in a much more insidious form.
My feeling is most people entering the news business today understand these realities and take a “don’t look, don’t see” approach to protect their futures. They suspect there’s some dirty business going on under the covers, but as long as they keep their attention focused elsewhere and don’t discuss such doubts with their editors, their future will remain bright. But just start talking about Saudi, Pakistani and Mossad connections to 9/11 in the news room and pretty soon you might be looking for a new line of work. See, it’s pretty obvious when none of the so-called oppositional sites will accept certain views that those views are actually taboo and anyone holding them isn’t going to be securing a bright economic future any time soon.