Skip to content

Comment on BBC news article ‘ The evolution of a conspiracy theory’

July 21, 2008

The following comment was published on the BBC news website on 4 July, 2008. You can view the article and all subsequent comments at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7488159.stm

Once again lines are being drawn by the use of language in this article. It seems any active questioning of events or suggestions of more feasible explanations are lumped into the category of ‘conspiracy theory.’ This language unjustly places people into separate camps – those who accept the official story and those who do not. If there are incongruous facts presented to explain these important historical events then we all must question them surely? Does that make us conspiracy theorists? In my opinion this label is too convenient and distracts from any real discourse. I do on the other hand appreciate the presentation of some of the aforementioned incongruous facts relating to Tower 7.

Worthy of note is that one sentence was censored from publication – the final sentence of the comment which stated: “There was little mention of Tower 7 in your broadcast documentary last year.” [referring to the first part of the BBC Conspiracy Files series about 9/11]. It seems to me that the purpose of this most recent episode of the Conspiracy Files was in a sense to cover the fact that the program had not dealt with the issue of Tower 7 in the first part of the series. The BBC have certainly led to me believe this is the case now had I not before.

Advertisements
One Comment leave one →

Trackbacks

  1. Bookmarks about Evolution

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: