("Quid coniuratio est?")
From email@example.comWed Feb 7 09:20:53 1996
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 15:10:46 GMT
From: "Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxx" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 7 Num. 11
This morning I read a post on alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater entitled "L.J. Davis Interview." I believe it (or the comments following) were attributed to you.
Note also that Mr. Davis does not tell us why he considers it a false line of inquiry. Is it perhaps because it is an area that gets a bit scarey to consider? With all respect to Mr. Davis, is he perhaps afraid to really look at it?
If this came from you, a followup is in order (and if it's not from you, sorry for this e-mail :-)
I've been a member of the press for a number of years now....
Recently I've been pointing a few xxxxxx colleagues to the Grabbe/Norman/etc. material. One of these folks - now a senior executive at a major publication - began calling guys like Norman and Rodriguez (Insight) to ascertain whether there was any credibilty to their reporting; he came away convinced that there is something there.
But in the course of his discussions he also decided to be very, very careful in any coverage of "Whitewater" (Systematics, Mena, etc) because "I don't want to get sued....or killed."
So the mechanism you describe above is certainly on the mark. Reporters are afraid to cover this material.
I also have been corresponding with another journalist at a major business publication (another former colleague) on these topics. Here's what he wrote a few days ago:
"Jim Norman is an excellent reporter. Personally, I find the conspiracy beat to be a tough one to stake out any long standing credibility in, and the Systematics/Inslaw/Whitewater stuff is too far afield for my tastes."
So, again, I think you're quite on the mark when you say "With all respect to Mr. Davis, is he perhaps afraid to really look at it?"
Many in the public believe reporters to be slovenly or malevolent because of this ongoing failure to cover "Whitewater." What they do not understand that reporters - like many other citizens - have their jobs, mortgages, families, and "credibility" to protect. And when they take a look at Whitewater, many of them get spooked.
By the way, Norman's statements that Paul Rodriguez at Insight was [paraphrase] "told by an intelligence officer to back off of Alltel/Systematics" is wrong. Rodriguez said it was a friend who said this (not an "intelligence officer"), who simply suggested that he be very careful of the legalities involved; reporters do not like to be sued for libel, since their notes then become a subject of scrutiny. Rodriguez is not pleased with the manner in which this has been characterized by Norman.
I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
See also: http://www.europa.com/~johnlf/cn.html
See also: ftp ftp.shout.net pub/users/bigred