Perception & Propaganda: Media Analysis of 9/11

Anyone who regularly reads newspapers is by now aware that there are people questioning the official version of events of September 11, 2001. Examples of coverage of the the "9/11 conspiracy theorists", as the mainstream media consistently characterizes the skeptics of the official story, include front-page articles in the Wall Street Journal and feature articles in Time and Popular Mechanics.

Contents


Media Perception Management

In the wake of the attack, the mainstream media framed it as an act of war to be avenged, rather than a crime to be investigated. The guilt of islamic terrorists and Osama bin Laden was presented as an open-and-shut case. The use of language to seal the official story as the default reality needing no examination or verification is illustrated by the framing of the destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers as collapses.

Critiques

In the years since the attack, the mainstream media has consistently belittled challenges to the official version of events as delusional. 911Review.com has archived a number of representative attack articles in the print media, and added commentary exposing their use of propagandistic techniques.

CounterPunch.org

In November 2006, Counterpunch.org published a series of articles by Manuel Garcia, Jr. purporting to debunk "conspiracy theories" about the destruction of the World Trade Center. The first article was The Physics of 9/11.

Popular Mechanics

The magazine Popular Mechanics featured the article 9/11: Debunking The Myths in its March, 2005 issue. The article broadly attacks all "conspiracy theorists" questioning the official version of events of 9/11/01. A year later Popular Mechanics published the book Debunking 9/11 Myths which revised and updated the content of its magazine article.

Public Opinion Polls

The media's consistent dismissal of skepticism of the official account does not reflect public opinion on the subject. A number of polls have showed that that a majority of Americans doubt the official account, and that the depth of skepticism appears to be growing.

2004 Zogby Poll

In August of 2004, a Zogby International poll indicated that 49.3% New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens "overall" say US Leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act." The poll, released on August 30, 2004, also found that 66% called for a new probe.

2006 Zogby Poll

In May of 2006, a Zogby International poll showed that 42% of Americans were more likely agree with people who believe that "the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up."

2006 Scripps Howard Poll

In July of 2006, a Scripps Howard and Ohio University poll concluded that, "Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that certain federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them", and "sixteen percent said it's "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that the collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings."

2006 Ipsos-Reid Poll

In September of 2006, an Ipsos-Reid poll found that 22 percent of Canadians believe "the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden and were actually a plot by influential Americans."

2006 New York Times and CBS News Poll

In October of 2006, a New York Times and CBS news poll showed that 28 percent believed that members of the Bush Administration were mostly lying about "what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States."

Share |
Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice        Design by Digital Style Designs: Graphics and Media for Effecting Change