The priority for the readers of those newspapers was not the quality of research, or the writing, or the photography or any of that nonsense. Their top concern, first and foremost, was to read material which presented events in a way that was most pleasing to their pre-existing world view
Curiously, apolitical readers of the back pages of newspapers often genuinely were interested in non-partisan, well-written, well researched articles, accompanied by decent photography. Which is why you could sometimes screw up guessing a person's politics by their choice of newspaper, if they'd only bought it for the sports coverage
The reason why I'm raising the subject of people prioritising their world-view ahead of their thirst for objectivity is that I've just finished reading Webster Tarpley's take on the recent massacre in Norway...
Norway Terror Attacks a False Flag: More Than One Shooter on Island; Oslo Police Drilled Bomb Blasts; Was It NATO’s Revenge for Norway’s Decision to Stop Bombing Libya?
Washington DC, July 24, 2011 – The tragic terror attacks in Norway display a number of the telltale signs of a false flag provocation...
As I was reading the piece I was overcome with the same sense of frustrated tedium that I've been feeling recently as I plough through most of the 'alternative' news and commentary on the web. In that respect, I'm not singling Tarpley out. His article on Behring Breivik simply typifies the laziness that I think is corrupting alternative analyses of current events
What's my problem with Tarpley's piece?
For starters this 'number of telltale signs of false flag terror' stuff is way too reminiscent of the cliched 'all the hallmarks of Al-Qaeda' nonsense that mainstream commentators trot out five seconds after anything bad happens in the world
And the parallels with mainstream presstitution don't end there. Tarpley and countless other 'Truthers' started banging out their analyses of the massacre whilst the bodies were still warm. The result was not informed commentary but mounds of speculative verbiage - where the absence of facts and carefully thought out conclusions was compensated for by a pile of 'what ifs' and 'maybes'
And whilst I'm on the subject of carefully thought out conclusions, the last time I looked the whole purpose of a 'false flag op' was to create the appearance that it was carried out by another entity. So how does framing up reactionary white supremacist lunatics 'punish' the Norwegian state for refusing to bomb Libya or, as others are writing, for its friendly relations with Palestine?
If this were a false-flag op to punish Norway wouldn't the idea be to implicate Libya, or Palestine, or Muslims in general? Why would Zionist or other establisment gangs stage an atrocity which discredits an ideology they've worked like bastards to cultivate and which they need to maintain now more than ever?
There's no serious critical or original thought going on in Tarpley's piece; no more than in most of the other alternative commentary I've read. The writers are just simply filtering through the material as it becomes available and cherry-picking that which fits their pre-established narratives. The end result is a certainty of conclusion that is a 'characteristic hallmark' of the most blinkered, the most confirmation-bias afflicted and the most thoughtless