A Pacifica employee writes:

"Dear Scott:

Is it only on the issue of 9-11 that you feel Amy Goodman is deceiving or keeping information from the public? Or do you feel it she does this often and consistently?

It seems to me that, except for 9-11, she regularly and vigorously challenges the projects, policies, and pronouncements of those in power. If this is so, what reason would she have for reversing her practice on just this one issue?

Do you feel she mouthes the 'official' explanation out of a hidden agenda, or because she may sincerely believe it? The former does not seem to be consistent with the general thrust and content of her show throughout the years."

My reply:

"She's not deceiving. It isn't like she has a full understanding of what she's saying. It is more that she is incurious. She has shut off large intellectual discussions and because she isn't exposed to them, she has no need to question the ideas behind them.

A book could be written about the propaganda function she provides the Bush regime. Bush and his current spokesperson (Scott McClellan) are famously inarticulate. Meanwhile, Amy, with her arresting eyes and very sincere appearance lends enormous credibility to propaganda elements used by the Empire.

I singled out Amy in the article to try to reach a segment of her fanbase. However, the same points I made with her could be made with Counterpunch, Z Magazine, Norman Solomon, Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, etc. In their own ways they are each performing the propaganda function of telling their audience that Al Qaeda really exists; that it destroyed the WTC; that Saddam Hussein is really captured; that a war has been taking place in Afghanistan, etc.

When you have Noam Chomsky telling his audiences that he refuses to look into 911 anomalies then he has confirmed the official story of 911. His stature means far more than if Bush or McClellan say something about it. In truth, the Bush regime has to be counting on Chomsky and Goodman to sell these fictional propaganda elements. They are being used, and AG and NC don't seem to mind.

I read Michel Chossudovsky (www.GlobalResearch.ca) . Chosso attacks the Bush regime by attacking their propaganda on a regular basis. He's infinitely more valuable to the Resistance than is Chomsky at this time. (I have been a Chomsky admirer for years.) However, Chosso has never been on Amy's program and there seems to be no plans for him to make his debut. That's an enormous ommission from AG. It also personifies in a nutshell the difference between truly fighting them and actually repeating their propaganda.

peace,
Scott"