Authentic Journalism
[back] Media

"Authentic journalism is telling people something that the government doesn't want them to know."--Gary Webb

[Scarce.  You run the risk of being sacked or bumped off, like Gary Webb, if you go too far, while the media proclaim you took your own life due to stress.  Most of these are not media, obviously.  Quite a few need adding.  Running your own paper that tells the truth can be deadly--they killed Don Harkins of the Idaho Observer.]

See: Conspiracy researchers

Barrett, Kevin
Blum, William
Bollyn, Christopher
Booker, Christopher
Constantine, Alex
Donner, Frank
Glick, Brian
Hoffman, Michael
McGehee, Ralph
Parry, Robert
Parenti, Dr. Michael
Pilger, John
Keith Harmon Snow
Thomas C. Mountain
Zepezauer, Mark
Scott, Peter Dale
Solomon, Norman
Webb, Gary

Africa [Africa]
Anthony Brink (AIDS, AZT)
Kihura Nkuba (Polio vaccine)
Peter Erlinder
Keith Harmon Snow
Awadu, Keidi Obi
Thomas C. Mountain

Wayne Madsen
Charles Onana

Christopher Black
Robin Philpot

Edward S. Herman
Juan Carrero
Georgianne Nienaber

Revisionist historians
Ball, John
Belling, Joe
Bellinger, Joseph P.
Bennett, John
Berg, Paul

Bishop, Joseph
Brewer, George
Burg, Joseph G.
Butz, Arthur R.
Christophersen, Thies
Cole, David
Crowell, Samuel
Desjardins, D.D.
Faurisson, Professor Robert
Felderer, Ditlieb
Garaudy, Roger
Grubach, Paul
Harwood, Richard
Hallett, Greg l

Hoffman, Michael
Honsik, Gerd
Irving, David
James, Michae
Kollerstrom, Nicholas
Krege, Richard
Kues, Thomas
Lagace, Ivan
Leuchter, Jr., Fred A.
Mattogno, Carlo
Mullins, Eustace
Nielsen, Ernst
O'Keefe, Theodore J.
Porter, Carlos Whitlock
Rassinier, Paul
Rudolf, Germar
Rudolph, Tijudar
Smith, Bradley
Stäglich, Wilhelm
Töben, Fredrick
Walendy, Udo
Weir,  John
Weber, Mark
Widmann, Richard A.
Zundel, Ernst
Bigtree, Del
Crowe, David
Rappoport, Jon
Hodgkinson, Neville
Hooper, Edward
Lauritsen, John
Null, Ph.D., Gary
Scheff, Liam
Martin Walker MA
Hilary Butler
J. B. Handley
John Stone
Christina England

Matrix journos [Experts]
David Aaronovitch

Ben Goldacre
Michael Fumento

Greek Chorus (Wakefield)

See:  Vaccine Critics Smallpox vaccine critics  Psychiatry critics  Cancer Industry critics  Allopathy Vivisection/Animal research critics

So the message was quite clearly made apparent to those of us working on this topic that when you tried to tell the American people what was happening, you put your career at risk, which may not seem like a lot to some people, but you know, reporters are like everybody else I guess - they have mortgages and families and so forth and they don't really want to lose their jobs - I mean it's not something they aspire to. And the idea of success is to keep one of these jobs and there are a lot of interesting perks that go with it, a certain amount of esteem, you know, as well as you get paid pretty well. Those jobs in Washington - you can often be making six figures at some of the major publications, so it's not something you readily or easily throw away, from that working level. [1993] Fooling America. A talk by Robert Parry

But the press has gone from being when I got there '77 as a Watergate press corp, with its faults, with being maybe a little too overly zealous in pursuing some minor infraction, but still - it was there as the watchdog. What we have now, and its continuing into this new era, is the Reagan-Bush press corp. It's the press corp that they helped create - that they created partly by purging those, or encouraging the purging of those who were not going along, but it was ultimately the editors and the news executives that did the purging. It wasn't the White House or the State Department or the Embassy in El Salvador that drove Ray Bonner out of the New York Times; it was the New York Times executives who did it. And throughout that whole era it wasn't the State Department or the White House that ruined Paul Allen's career at NPR, it was NPR executives. And this was the case all the way around Washington. The people who succeeded and did well were those who didn't stand up, who didn't write the big stories, who looked the other way when history was happening in front of them, and went along either consciously or just by cowardice with the deception of the American people. [1993] Fooling America. A talk by Robert Parry

But what we began to see was something that was unusual I think even for Washington - certainly it was unusual in my experience - a very nasty, often ad hominem attack on the journalists who were not playing along. And the case of Bonner was important because he worked for the New York Times, and the New York Times was one of those bastions of American journalism - this was not some small paper, it was not some insignificant news figure. So there began an effort to discredit him and the Wall Street editorial page was brought into play, Accuracy In Media was brought into play, he was attacked routinely by the State Department and White House spokespeople, there were efforts to paint him as some kind of a communist sympathizer, the charge would go around that he was worth a full division for the FMLN - the Salvadoran guerrillas - he was treated as an enemy - someone who was anti-American, in effect. And sadly, it worked. I was in ES in October of '82, I was down there to interview Roberto Dobesan, who was head of the death squads, and I was with a conservative activist, and after that interview we had lunch with the head of the political-military affairs office at the Embassy and the officer was then head of the military group, and on the way back to the hotel, they were boasting about how they had "gotten" Ray Bonner. "We finally got that Son-of-a-Bitch," they said, and at that time his removal had not yet been announced, so it was very interesting to hear that they knew what was about to happen, and he was, in fact, removed by early 1983, and then he was sort of shunted aside at the New York Times and eventually left. [1993] Fooling America. A talk by Robert Parry

Now, the kind of effect that has is often subtle. In the case of NPR, one thing that happened was that the foreign editor, named Paul Allen, saw his next evaluation be marked down, and the use of this story was cited as one of the reasons for his being marked down and he felt that he had no choice but to leave NPR and he left journalism altogether. These were the kind of prices that people were starting to pay, all across Washington. The message was quite clear both in the region and in Washington that you were not going to do any career advancement if you insisted on pushing these stories. The White House is going to make it very, very painful for your editors by harassing them and yelling at them; having letters sent; going to your news executives - going way above even your bureau chiefs sometimes - to put the pressure on, to make sure if these stories were done they were done only in the most tepid ways. And there also was, in an underreported side of this, there were these independent organizations, who were acting as sort of the Wurlitzer organ effect for the White House attacks. Probably the most effective one from their side was Accuracy In Media, which we find out, from looking at their internal documents - the White House internal documents, was actually being funded out of the White House. There was - in one case we have because we have the records, the White House organized wealthy businessmen, particularly those from the news media, from the conservative news media, to come into the White House to the situation room where Charlie Wick, who was then head of USIA, pitched them to contribute a total of $200,000 to be used for public diplomacy and the money is then directed to Accuracy In Media and to Freedom House and a couple of other organizations which then support the White House in its positions, and make the argument that the White House is doing the right thing and that these reporters who are getting in the way must be Sandinista sympathizers or must not be very patriotic or whatever we were supposed to be at the time.
    So you had this effect of what seemed to be independent organizations raising their voice, but, the more we kept finding out, the more we found at that these weren't independent organizations at all. These were adjuncts of a White House/CIA program that had at its very heart the idea of how we reported the news in Washington and how the American people perceived what was going on in Central America. I'm not sure this has ever happened before - I can't think of it, but it was a remarkable change in the way that the government, as I guess Ross Perot might say, was coming "at" the people rather than, you know, being "of" the people. [1993] Fooling America. A talk by Robert Parry

The overall effect as this continued over time was cumulative. Those of us in the press who continued - who were not smart enough to seek cover, found our work more and more being discredited, and us personally being attacked, because the game really became how do you destroy the investigator. And whether it be America's watch, which was finding that the Contras were engaged in human rights violations as well as the Sandinistas (I should say), or if it were the Catholic Church in El Salvador reporting upon the atrocities there, or it was some journalist finding out about the deceptions in Washington, the best way to deal with that was to discredit the people who were doing the investigation. If you made them look like they were unpatriotic, wrongheaded, somehow subversive, the overall effect was to, first of all make it harder for them to do their job, and secondly when they did their job, people would tend not to believe it. So it worked, basically. [1993] Fooling America. A talk by Robert Parry