Numerous hit pieces follow an identical pattern
By Craig McKee
Johnson has been targeted since he told podcaster Benny Johnson that he favored a new investigation of 9/11 that would include examining what really brought down the three World Trade Center towers.
In a previous article, I gave some examples of the initial attacks that followed the April 21 release of the Johnson interview. In this follow-up, I will reach into my two-part examination of how media deceitfully use a series of tactics to marginalize and suppress dissenting voices (i.e. “conspiracy theorists”). In those earlier articles (Part 1 here and Part 2 here), I identified 18 tactics that media routinely use to ridicule and dismiss those who depart from official narratives.
To whet your appetite for what is to come, here is a headline from Hafiz Rashid’s piece in The New Republic that is typical of the recent barrage being launched to discredit Johnson: “Ron Johnson Goes Full 9/11 Truther in Deranged Rant: The Republican senator is openly embracing the most outrageous conspiracy theory.”
It’s not just an outrageous conspiracy theory, it’s the MOST outrageous one.
Believe me, it’s just the tip of the iceberg. But it’s this iceberg that will sink what’s left of the mainstream media’s credibility.
But before we break down some of these hit pieces in more detail, let’s review the tactics that I have identified:
- Assert that something in a person’s psychology makes them believe in conspiracy theories: This is the claim that people embrace conspiracy theories to help themselves make sense of a chaotic world by imagining that strings are being pulled to influence events.
- Claim that conspiracy theorists are paranoid, irrational, and/or anti-science: They can never be convinced they are wrong, we’re told, and they accuse their critics of being part of the cover-up.
- Maintain that conspiracy theorists don’t have evidence for their theories, and they don’t care about what the facts say. They just “believe” they are right even after their claims have been “disproven”: This includes the claim that conspiracy theorists often believe contradictory things.
- Make bald assertions about “conspiracy theories” that are completely unsupported or just attributed to some academic who studies the “psychology” of conspiracy theories: “Academics” will assert that “conspiracy theorists” are vulnerable to “misinformation” and that the more they are challenged, the firmer their views get. Related to tactic #1.
- Use the term “conspiracist”: Conspiracist is a label that is intended to seem academic and authoritative but is really just dismissive.
- Attack “theories” using extreme and cartoonish descriptors (bizarre, pernicious, hooey, bogeyman): It’s all about cutting off inquiry before it even starts. Words are chosen to discredit and to prevent evidence from being considered. It’s not enough to claim that a given theory is “wrong,” it must also be “bizarre.” We hear about “nefarious” and “sinister” plots, and “shadowy” conspirators.
- Impugn the motives of conspiracy theorists: It’s often taken as a given that “conspiracy theorists” are pushing theories that they know are false. No evidence is ever produced to support this charge of lying. They are also accused of being in it only for the money. Conspiracy theories are not advocated for, they are “peddled.”
- Paint conspiracy theorists as fringe and/or “far right” and/or Trump supporters: This is self-explanatory marginalizing that is nothing more than a guilt-by-association tactic.
- Question why these “beliefs” persist after so many years: The assumption inherent in this question is that those who falsely believe in conspiracies should eventually come to their senses and see the error of their ways. The fact that theories (like “9/11 was an inside job”) continue to be advanced more than two decades after the event is offered as proof that those who hold the theories are influenced by something other than evidence and facts.
- State as if it’s a fact that certain theories are false and were debunked years ago: This is what is known as a bald assertion. No evidence needs to be provided to substantiate this claim. The idea is to con the reader into thinking the proof of its validity has been provided many times.
- Lump strong, or at least plausible, theories with weak or easily discredited ones (or at least with theories that are perceived as having been discredited): This is a form of guilt by association.
- “Debunk” the weakest or least credible points in “conspiracy theories”: This could include something like the claim that beams fired from space destroyed the Twin Towers.
- Make a theory sound false by giving a bogus, unfounded, or incomplete reason the conspirators would have engaged in the conspiracy. The assumption implied here is that if we can’t figure out why someone would do something, then they didn’t do it.
- Dismiss any notion of government conspiracy on the grounds that government is much too incompetent to have pulled it off: When governments are a little too enthusiastic about admitting they screwed up, it probably means they want to hide what they really did. The Iraq War and 9/11 are obvious examples.
- Begin articles by relating some supposed horror story where belief in one or more “conspiracy theories” by a person or group allegedly caused real harm to them or others.
- State that conspiracy theories are “dangerous” to democracy and/or to human health: Conspiracy theories must not just be dismissed, they must be combatted. If they are not, it is argued, catastrophic harm will result.
- Equate conspiracy theories with contagions: We regularly hear about the “spread” of conspiracy theories, a term that is bound to resonate with those who most fear the spread of actual viruses.
- Link an explosion of conspiracy theories to the internet: This connection points to the supposed dangers of a free internet. It feeds into the idea that “misinformation” must be eliminated from the internet using censorship. This item also reinforces the myth that conspiracy theories are getting much “worse.”
Now that we’ve done that, let’s see if we can find some of these tactics being employed against Senator Johnson. Spoiler alert, you’ll have trouble swinging a deceased feline without hitting examples:
NBC News
We haven’t even started the body of the article, and we can already see what the authors are up to. By using the word “peddling,” which is attributed to Lawler, the writers are using tactic #7 (Impugn the motives of conspiracy theorists.) One meaning of “peddling” is to sell goods, sometimes illegal ones, and using it here implies that conspiracy theorists are motivated by desire for personal gain. Another meaning of the word is “to promote an unreliable or untrue idea or view.” This employs tactic #10 (stating as if it’s a fact that a theory has been proven false). This involves the logical fallacy known as the “bald assertion.”
And that’s just the beginning for this reprehensible article. In the first paragraph, tactic #10 is used again when the authors write that Johnson “wants to hold congressional hearings on a “debunked conspiracy theory about the Sept. 11 attacks…”
A few paragraphs later, it happens again with this: “Johnson’s comments focused on a long-debunked claim about a building in the World Trade Center complex that collapsed hours after the Twin Towers were brought down by airliners.”
The source for this? The government’s 2008 NIST report on Building 7.
The article also makes liberal use of quotation marks to mock Johnson’s assertions. The term “controlled demolition” is put in quotes as if it has never been used to describe a building being brought down.
We also get another use of tactic #7 when Johnson is described as having “a history of amplifying conspiracy theories.” The implication is that he is not merely sharing his views; he is instead trying to promote an idea that the authors claim has been proven false. This is also tactic #3 (conspiracy theorists have no facts, just beliefs) and tactic #17, which suggests the idea of spreading the ideas the way a virus would be spread.
National Review
Tactic #2: The headline calls Republicans “Paranoiacs.” And this: “A decade hence, with paranoia the new coin of the realm, the outlines of that particular conspiracy theory are lamentably familiar to even the lay observer.”
Tactic #8: “… Donald Trump tacitly endorsed the LIHOP theory of the 9/11 attacks.”
Tactic #10: “The paranoid notion that any of the buildings that came down that day in lower Manhattan were deliberately collapsed has been debunked and debunked again.” And this gem: “Johnson’s suggestion that there are not just unanswered questions about the attacks but unasked questions is unsupportable.”
Tactic #9: “For almost a quarter of a century, enterprising freelancers have tried and failed to put meat on those bones. Still, their pursuit persists.” (After all these years…)
Politico
Tactic #8: Johnson interviewed on Benny Johnson’s “far-right” podcast.
Tactic #7: States that Johnson is “promoting” conspiracy theories about 9/11 as if that is indictment enough.
Tactic #10: States official story as if it’s proven. “The smaller office building could not withstand hours of uncontrolled fire after flaming debris rained down on the building.” And this: “They have all been subject to countless congressional hearings…”
Tactics #2: The use of “so-called 9/11 truthers…” goes with the idea that questioning 9/11 is anti-science.
Tactic #6: “However, its collapse has long been subject to rampant conspiracy theories…” This uses an extreme descriptor to ridicule conspiracy theories.
Tactic #17: The use of “rampant” also reinforces the idea of conspiracy theories “spreading” like a virus.
New York Daily News
Tactic #6: This is used twice in the headline with the use of descriptors like “warped” and “crazy.” Later in the article we get “corrosive conspiracy-mongering.”
This sentence impressively packs in three tactics: “The senior senator from Wisconsin, Republican Ron Johnson, is posing fresh questions about the deadliest attack on the United States in history, feeding into paranoid and dangerous conspiracy theories. Johnson asks as though they’re open questions…”
Tactic #2: Paranoid, again…
Tactic #16: Not only is Johnson “paranoid,” according to the Daily News, but his ideas are actually “dangerous.” This is suggested again here: “In an interview we’re loath to amplify, Johnson asserts…”
Tactic #10: As usual, it is asserted without evidence that the questions are closed. This one appears again, here: “The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are probably the most extensively studied events in the history of this nation.”
Tactics #6 and 7: “We get that it’s high time in our history for conspiracy theorists to peddle nonsense…” Peddling suggests some kind of personal gain and nonsense is another evidence-free dismissal.
Esquire
Tactics #9 and 10: with the reference in the headline to “dredging up” a conspiracy theory, Pierce uses both the claim that the theory persists after all these years and suggests that any challenges to the official story were debunked long ago. Later, this is done again: “Johnson’s comments focused on a long-debunked claim about a building in the World Trade Center complex that collapsed hours after the Twin Towers were brought down by airliners.”
Tactic #2: The article starts this way: “Go home, Ron. You’re an idiot.” Great start.
Tactics #7 and 17: This article echoes the one by NBC in its use of this idea: “The Wisconsin senator, who has a history of amplifying conspiracy theories…” Again, it is the idea of spreading ideas as one might a contagion along with suggesting that Johnson has bad questionable motives.
Huffington Post
Article by Ron Dicker (April 23): This snarky hit piece goes under the headline “GOP Senator Plans Hearings On 9/11 To Find Out ‘What Actually Happened’: The right-wing lawmaker won’t let go of a debunked Sept. 11 conspiracy theory.”
Tactic #8: The reference to Johnson as “right wing.”
Tactic #10: The claim that 9/11 “conspiracy theories” have been “debunked.” Also: “On conservative host Benny Johnson’s show Monday, the senator resurrected a debunked assertion that a building in the center that was not among the twin towers directly hit by terrorist-commandeered passenger jets could not have collapsed on its own and was felled by a ‘controlled demolition.’”
The piece also does a “guilt-by-association” thing as it connects 9/11 to other “conspiracy theories” that Johnson is supposed to have favored. The article also makes the absurd assertion that Building 7 “caved in,” using NIST as its source.
Momentum is shifting
Whatever their reasons, these disinformation techniques are being exposed more every day as the holes in the 9/11 official story become obvious to more and more people.
The establishment is on its heels. It’s playing defense. The momentum is with the 9/11 Truth Movement – and with the truth itself.