this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2025
78 points (90.6% liked)

Asklemmy

51314 readers
323 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Cloak@lemmy.ml
mekhos@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
14specks@lemmy.ml
78
Why aren't more people re-examining past conspiracies as trust in mainstream media declines over Gaza coverage? (reddthat.com)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by PumpkinDrama@reddthat.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
61 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

People are losing trust in mainstream media because of perceived biased coverage of the Gaza genocide. If that erosion of trust is real, why isn't it prompting wider public re-examination of historical cover-ups and contested narratives — Watergate, Iran–Contra, Iraq, even shifting beliefs about who “beat” the Nazis? If we don't question how past information was shaped, what’s the point of preserving evidence (e.g., Gaza genocide evidence recently removed from YouTube by Google)? Won’t this all be forgotten in a few years, the same way all those previous events are no longer discussed?

What’s stopping a sustained, constructive public inquiry into these parallels between past cover-ups and current information control? Where are good, constructive places to discuss these issues without falling into unproductive conspiracy spirals?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Most of the past ones have been admitted and are out in the open. A few big ones like JFK and 9/11 remain.

Tucker Carlson did an Interesting 9/11 series recently though (no I don't endorse Tucker Carlson as a whole)

[–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

1092: Tucker, The Man And His 9/11 Documentary

The guys at Knowledge Fight went over the first part of the documentary, and my takeaway was there's nothing new, the primary person being interviewed is a well known liar, and there's a lot dishonest claims being made and not a lot of evidence being given.

So what exactly do you think is so interesting about Tucker Carlson's series? What new things did you learn about 9/11?

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I searched that website for mentions of Gaza or Palestine and there seems to be no episode about it so I'm going to treat it as government propaganda.

[–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What are you talking about? Why would something be government propaganda just because you can't find mentions of Gaza or Palestine? It's a podcast mostly about Alex Jones, not a news agency. Are you always like this?

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

If it never debunks any propaganda about Palesestine it's government propaganda it's literally that easy. Try reading the post you are in.

[–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Alright, cool. So what did Tucker Carlson say that you thought was so interesting?

And I guess follow up question: was it all just government propaganda? Because I doubt he ever debunked any propaganda about Palestine.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Some fun facts about how the attackers were very obviously recruited by the CIA for a false flag. How they kept getting Saudi visas to the US even when one of the attackers stupidly locked himself out of the US.

Also yes Tucker has debunked a lot of Israeli propaganda, though just by repeating left wing points.

[–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Starting around 38:30 in the podcast

Dan Friesen: So the argument is that the CIA was trying to recruit these hijackers and make them into informants. And that is a theory. It is not established. It is not proven. But they start to just treat it as if they have proven it.

Mark Rossini: You have the CIA then following one man and then two men all over the planet and then eventually even to America, right? Landing in Los Angeles, California, and you don't tell the FBI.

Tucker Carlson: But why would the CIA want to hide the highly relevant and potentially dangerous fact that two known al-Qaeda terrorists had just landed in California? According to a recently released court filing, former White House counterterrorism star Richard Clark told government investigators that the quote: "CIA was running a false flag operation to recruit the hijackers."

Richard Clark: When Cofer Black became the head of the counterterrorism center at CIA, he was aghast that they had no sources in Al-Qaeda. So he told me, I'm going to try to get sources in Al-Qaeda. I can understand them possibly saying we need to develop sources inside Al-Qaeda. When we do that, we can't tell anybody about it.

Dan Friesen: So it's important to pay attention to the way that information is used by people like Tucker and notice the little tweaks that they make in order to push their narratives. In this case, Tucker is setting up his clip of Richard Clark, and he says that Clark revealed that the CIA was engaged in a false flag to recruit these hijackers.

Then he plays the clip of Clark that does not say that. But instead is Clark saying that he could understand the intelligence folks trying to secretly turn the future hijackers into informants. He wasn't saying that the CIA was doing this, but he understood how it was possible.

Yeah, one of the conspiracy theorists' main tricks is equating proving that something is possible with proving that it's true. Richard Clark saying that it's possible that the CIA was trying to recruit the hijackers as informants is not the same thing as him saying that is what happened. But Tucker knows that to his audience, it is the same.

I don't know man, maybe you need to work on your media literacy a little more. Or maybe just as a rule, you shouldn't be taking anything Tucker Carlson says seriously.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Once again I don't listen to 'media literate' people who never talked about Palestine they are deeply unserious.

[–] ltxrtquq@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's the worst part: they do talk about Palestine. Just in the context of whoever they're covering. It's a little comforting to know you don't really bother engaging with anything people actually say to you, though.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 day ago

Have they rebuked there been rapes on October 7 yes or no?