Op-Ed News to marginalize 9/11 Truth
MG DeSpair Sat, 05/30/2009 - 2:02pm
In case anyone here has not been following the developments this week at OEN, a large scale purging of the members most vocal about 9/11 has occurred and Rob Kall himself has stated that Truth will now be considered an 'edge' issue. I guess the hypocritcal Mr Kall has gotten what he wanted, using Truthers to inflate his site stats to the point he'd be recognized by the MSM befofe dumping them so he doesn't look like a 'kook'.
- MG DeSpair's blog
- Login to post comments
The media outlets that should be friendly are the worst
One media site after another goes on my s*** list.
Alternet should be a site friendly to the 9/11 truth movement, as they have articles about tortore and wiretappping and illegal wars every day. And yet Alternet is the most insulting of the truth movement I have seen. They have right now a couple of articles about ridiculous "conspiracy theories". The writer Joshua Holland is the worst.
But at least Alternet will allow you to make comments without moderation, and I do every day. I would love for others to come on and defend the truth movement there.
Other media outlets that should be friendly to us but are also insulting are antiwar.com, commondreams.org, and Truthout. Democracy Now just ignores the whole issue, as does Mother Jones and the Nation magazine. Even Fox has done better than these so called "alternative" sites.
Listen to our podcast about alternet....
http://www.truthnews.com.au
Check part two of this show where we look at Joshua Holland's article as well as his selective memory and interlect closely!
We don't need these cowards the real "grass roots" are with us!
Regards John
9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au
David Griffin interview at this FOX NEWS site gives overview...
http://community2.myfoxdfw.com/service/searchEverything.kickAction?as=78...
David Ray Griffin interview at this Dallas, Texas Channel 4 FOX NEWS site gives an overview of the real situation.
http://community2.myfoxdfw.com/_911-Truth-The-evidence-is-clear/audio/46...
Separating the grain from the chaff.
It is my contention that a line in the sand is drawn. We are fortunate in that we can identify those who are on the side of The 9/11 Truth Movement and those who try to strike it down. These past betrayals by certain media and individuals actually assists us in The 9/11 Truth Movement, so that we don't get tripped up in trusting them for future endeavors. Those who currently oppose the movement or try to infiltrate it are really starting to look silly.
Building 7 Video on Fox below
http://community2.myfoxdfw.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=782...
Is there a link...
Explaining this new policy?
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
yes, link?
Currently there's a 'quicklink' to a 911Truth.org posting "9/11-Time to Take a Second Look" in the Life/Arts/Sci section on the front page.
I haven't been following OEN closely, if there was an article I missed it- I did get an email, which included this:
Cleaning up OEN and Changing OEN Policy on Edge Topics
Most progressive sites refuse to cover 911 truth and more exotic topics, like UFOs, NWO and conspiracy theories. OEN has covered them and it has brought some problems, particularly a crew of unpleasant, negative commenters who attack just about every article published, particularly ones by higher visibility writers. We've decided to clean things up, so we're cracking down on this crew, holding firmer to rules aganst spamming articles and personal attacks and name calling. The goal is to maintain our open forum for discourse-- a forum that this small group has effectively intimidated and turned off.
That WILL mean some of those spamming, name calling commenters will lose posting privileges to the site (be banned) or lose commenting privileges. We expect that the net result will be a community where the widest range of topics and opinions will be discussed in a civil manner. We're sure that this small group will holler about censorship. They will be free to angrily post their words elsewhere.
We plan to continue publishing solid, well documented and supported articles on all subjects. If the focus is on edgy topics like 911 Truth, UFOs, NWO, JFK or other conspiracy theories, the articles, upon passing the test of new material and documented claims, will be posted to our EDGES hot page: http://www.opednews.com/index.php?hot=8
This is a decision that the OEN senior team has struggled with at length. We believe it is the right thing to do to move OEN in the direction we want it to go-- towards continuing to be a trusted, respected media site/ community blog where progressive ideas and visions are explored in a respectful tough minded way, and where progressive ideas reach political and thought leaders, so our writers not only get their ideas out, but also reach, influence and make a difference.
I'm taking yesterday's coverage of OEN by the NY Times as a portent that we are on the right path.
I hope you'll take all this news as an encouragement to post your articles, diaries, polls and comments to the site, or, to go further and take the step of committing to become a volunteer for the site.
Cordially,
Rob Kall
http://911reports.com
They...
Just let me post this...?
http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=13329
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
I think.....
That what you've posted fits into what Rob and the team there have decieded is okay. Blaming the Saudis fits with the OTC enough that it could be 'mainstream'. Had it been an article about CD or the war games or Cheney in the bunker then if I'm reading what they have said correctly it would have been rejected or pushed into the fringes. I hope that the number of comments taking them to task for the policy change may lead to second thoughts but I doubt it. My hunch is that those on the site who are the most anti-Truth will be allowed to publish more attacks or 'edge' diaries about UFOs etc in an effort to make us seem crazy. And since a line has been drawn the attacks will be harder to defend against without the fear of being banned.
links?
what comments are you referring to- on an article where Rob Kall outlined this policy? Or on unrelated threads? Links, please
I'm not defending Rob- his May 28 email I posted above is weird, at best, and sounds really lame- half the country, according to polls, and a supermajority of Dems/progressives, don't buy the OCT, though many may are likely unsure what to think or do, and may be steering clear of raising questions and agitating for answers due to the attacks by MSM and the bogus info being circulated- the movement for truth is not an "edge" issue- it's a mainstream issue, but being blacked out by fake media, and corrupted by scoundrels.
Albury Smith, a notorious shill who attacked 9/11 skeptics, especially strawmen being set up by probable fakes, was banned a while back- so hopefully the only ones who'll be banned are those shills and fake "truthers" who engage in the personal attacks, as Rob's email indicated.
However- I've submitted a ton of 9/11 links which blow holes in the OCT and they've been accepted, but or some time I've suspected he may have one or a few shills on his editorial staff, given some of the strange rejection letters I've received re article submissions- this latest from May 25 being a prime example:
"You submitted an article titled:
Zelikow Caught in a Whopper; Made False Statements to Author about Criminal Referral for NORAD, FAA
---
Op Ed News Administrator
P.S. This article is not news. Moreover it is republished from another site."
-----
In response, I sent the following notice to Rob's personal email May 27 (no reply yet, but I didn't ask for one):
Hi Rob,
Just wanted to bring to your personal attention the stated reasons this article was rejected: "P.S. This article is not news. Moreover it is republished from another site."
OpEdNews frequently accepts articles that have been published on other sites. Also, I find it strange the editor claims it's not "news"; I submitted this the day after the article was first published at hcgroups, and the internal commission memo and emails referred to have not been covered before, by MSM or independent media.
Zelikow Caught in a Whopper; Made False Statements to Author about Criminal Referral for NORAD, FAA
http://hcgroups.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/zelikow-caught-in-a-whopper-mad...
Erik
I got a similar bogus rejection after submitting my "Is the 9/11 'Pentagon Hole' a Psyop to Distract from Real Questions?" article:
http://911reports.com
Drop them, waste of time...
Get out on the 11th! Get out to thousands with us!
Believe me, they are ready to hear the TRUTH
*
Be embarrassed to know of people like Rob and Joshua and you will feel better for it :)
Let them do nice things and we'll save the world from a permanent"false reality".
Be free to seek the truth....
John
9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au
Link
Here's the link to Robs latest comments. Sorry there are so many of them but it's actually good reading so maybe worth your time. Robs are near the middle of the debate IIRC. In the past he has refered to the opions of those he banned as 'garbage'. I wish I could remmeber what it was in response to in order to provide the link as well.
http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=13300
If you don't feel like skimming, to sumerize Rob thinks the nanothermite article has been refuted. To me that implies he will be putting an impossibly high standard on 'documented' articles when it comes to 9/11 truth.
thx for the link- 167 comments
I agree discussion should be civil and it's helpful to have facts to back up opinions, but Rob's a little too proud of himself for getting noticed by Mockingbird NYT (before the election he boasted about being contacted by the Wall Street Journal and asked if opednews would be backing the Dem candidate) and his "nanite" comment shows he's pretty clueless.
I'll keep submitting stuff there as they get picked up by google news. There's far more up votes on the comment thread for COTO than the "mainstream" types.
http://911reports.com
167?
Wow, there was 121 when I posted the link so it seems like Rob touched a nerve with his bans. I do have to give him props for at least letting members denounce his (or more likely Steve Lessers since COTO was merciless with him) decision but if most people support the COTO position which Rob is trying to quell I wonder how long it'll be before the site becomes barren.
This irks me...
Because I know Betsy spent a small fortune on advertising there. However, I know what Rob is referring to with regards to commenters. 911Blogger.com has changed it's format because of some of the posts that were making it through... remember when Nico & Co blasted this site with TV Fakery?
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
Here's another insulting article on Alternet: disgusting!
http://www.alternet.org/media/140351/how_a_conspiracy_theorist_who_thoug...
Check out the comments! Quite a debate going on.
This....
Is what I based my blog on along with some comments that were actually far more anti-truth made by Rob on the site. Why the hell do 'progressives' crave mainstream attention so much? And why do they think the only way to get it is by limiting what they talk about? That has never stopped the right (and yes I know it's all a show,this whole left right thing but to the masses it's real) .
Not surprising
Op-Ed News always sort of struck me as vehicle for pairing 9/11 truth material with UFO stuff and other fringe material. Now they're just making the move to do it officially and explicitly. "Edge" my ass.
The Eleventh Day of Every Month
Suprised and Disappointed
I'm was very surprised and disappointed to learn on 5/21 that OpEdNews has deemed my new article "41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11" to be unworthy of publication.
The stated reason, "This article does not report or discuss anything that we consider new or that presents a different perspective."
I have not received a reply to my personal email to Rob requesting reconsideration sent on 5/22.
This appears to be a dramatic change in editorial policy over the last 18 months since my article about 7 CIA Veterans was the most viewed story on OpEdNews in the month of Sept 2007.
The new 8,500 word article is, by far, the most comprehensive article to date regarding the questioning of the official account of 9/11 by these 41 experienced veterans of the U.S. Intelligence community. You can see it at http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Articles
I would venture a guess that more than 95% of the content of the article is unknown to more than 95% of all Americans; and it is crucially important information.
And actually very little has been written about the first two people mentioned in the article.
So, what's the definition of newsworthy? Will OpEdNews hold 9/11 Truth articles to a higher standard than other subjects?
It remains to be seen, but I am still surprised and disappointed.
Alan Miller
http://www.PatriotsQuestion911.com
Hi Allan! Thanks for the data your giving us and the encourage..
..ment.
Just get out on the eleventh, for whether they are bought, sold or prostituted, stupid or even lazy; they have no soul and no sorry.
Grass roots and truth is all we got :) Find more of us less limited people in the community; in the streets.
Allan your story would of topped all MSM media in ratings if it was told by those with influence. I put it in the in box of many with influence..so did many, many others as it was an excellent piece.
Unfortunately the left have shown they don't want justice, change or the status quo. They want what is best for themselves as individuals in a voting factional group while the rest of us get used, abused and tortured, sickening!
Regards John
9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au
Here's the whole email -- $7,000 a month!
(If the site is run by volunteers... who the fuck is getting the [just under] $7,000 a month!)
Subject: OpEdNews Member Update-- Good News, Staff News, banning news
05-28-2009 12:11:02 AM
We have some big news about changes at OpEdNews and about coverage of OpEdNews that shows how nicely OEN is growing in reach and stature
Tuesday OEN editor Steve Leser was invited back to joust with right wing pundits on Fox News for the third time.He just found out he's been invited back again for a financial panel discussion and he suggests that I solicit articleswhich discuss progressive proposals on how businesses and the economy can be run more progressively. We'd like to see them come in on Friday night and Saturday morning. We'll be looking for them and looking to headline them. Speaking of headlining, one way to dramatic increase the odds of getting your article headlined is to upload an image that you include in the article. Use this FAQ to find images: How to Add Flickr Images to Your Article or Diary: http://www.opednews.com/populum/faq.php?fid=64
Yesterday morning I was greeted by a google alert informing me that OpEdNews was mentioned in the New York times, mentioned OEN as a progressive commentary site.
I posted a diary about it here.
New York Times Cites OpEdNews.com in article on Left's Response to Obama SCOTUS Pick
http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=13267
This news offers a great excuse to catch up with ALL the registered members of OEN-- that's who's getting this email-- people who signed up as members of OEN. It's been months since I sent out a mailing to this list, so don't worry that you will be routinely be seeing emails because of your registration.
Catching up:
We have a new managing editorial team and a relatively new senior editorial team. You can see profiles on our masthead: http://www.opednews.com/populum/masthead.php
I can't tell you how hardworking and dedicated this volunteer team is.
We've had two of our longtime senior team editors retire-- Amanda Lang, and Jan Baumgartner-- and we want to give them our thanks and best wishes for their future endeavors. They've played a valuable role in taking OEN to the point it has reached so far. We're already missing them.
As a non-profit site, we're always looking for more volunteers. We need editors for the queue, graphic editors and artists to help add images to articles our members submit, recruiters to bring in new writers, PR people, folks to help with grant researching and writing, transcriptionists. If you have an hour or more a week, you can help make a difference at OEN.
If you do or don't have time, we always need financial help. In these trying economic times, OEN has been struggling harder than ever to keep its head above water. Your donation of $5, $50, $100, $200 or $500 can make a big difference. Please, if you've never contributed, or if it's been more than a few months, dig deep and help meet our urgent need for funds to pay for web hosting, our webmaster and other expenses. We run the site on under $7,000 a month. Compare that to the Nation, which reports spending millions a year. Donate by credit card or paypal to OpEdNEws.com at http://www.opednews.com/donate
Or, if you prefer to use a check, http://www.opednews.com/donate/paybycheck.php
Cleaning up OEN and Changing OEN Policy on Edge Topics
Most progressive sites refuse to cover 911 truth and more exotic topics, like UFOs, NWO and conspiracy theories. OEN has covered them and it has brought some problems, particularly a crew of unpleasant, negative commenters who attack just about every article published, particularly ones by higher visibility writers. We've decided to clean things up, so we're cracking down on this crew, holding firmer to rules aganst spamming articles and personal attacks and name calling. The goal is to maintain our open forum for discourse-- a forum that this small group has effectively intimidated and turned off.
That WILL mean some of those spamming, name calling commenters will lose posting privileges to the site (be banned) or lose commenting privileges. We expect that the net result will be a community where the widest range of topics and opinions will be discussed in a civil manner. We're sure that this small group will holler about censorship. They will be free to angrily post their words elsewhere.
We plan to continue publishing solid, well documented and supported articles on all subjects. If the focus is on edgy topics like 911 Truth, UFOs, NWO, JFK or other conspiracy theories, the articles, upon passing the test of new material and documented claims, will be posted to our EDGES hot page: http://www.opednews.com/index.php?hot=8
This is a decision that the OEN senior team has struggled with at length. We believe it is the right thing to do to move OEN in the direction we want it to go-- towards continuing to be a trusted, respected media site/ community blog where progressive ideas and visions are explored in a respectful tough minded way, and where progressive ideas reach political and thought leaders, so our writers not only get their ideas out, but also reach, influence and make a difference.
I'm taking yesterday's coverage of OEN by the NY Times as a portent that we are on the right path.
I hope you'll take all this news as an encouragement to post your articles, diaries, polls and comments to the site, or, to go further and take the step of committing to become a volunteer for the site.
Cordially,
Rob Kall
PS. it is part of our member terms of use that we can send you emails occasionally. You can deactivate your membership if you don't want to receive such notifications.
Hey rep
I've noticed you snuck a little jab to OpEdNews into the title tag; ("way more edgy") ... nice going ;-)
Obviously it's a shame we see so much arrogant ignorance of 9/11 among intellectuals.
My letter to Rob Kall...
Rob... I saw that you are going to be putting 9/11 Truth related entries into an area called "edges..." Linking it to UFO, and other such "crazy" topics. Is this true?
Thanks,
Jon
His "reply"
Not linking
My reply
From what I understand, "If the focus is on edgy topics like 911 Truth, UFOs, NWO, JFK or other conspiracy theories, the articles, upon passing the test of new material and documented claims, will be posted to our EDGES hot page."
There is no "theory" regarding the multitude of cover-ups, and lies regarding the 9/11 attacks. By putting 9/11 Truth into a category that includes UFOs, NWO, etc... you are "linking" 9/11 Truth to the more crazier topics. I understand that there are individuals who post nonsense, and I understand that there are individuals that post vulgar attack after vulgar attack within the comments section, however, ban the individual. Don't make the cause of 9/11 Truth pay for what they've done.
Especially when you take into account that people like Betsy Metz who paid a fortune in advertising to your site, and people like me and other more reputable 9/11 Truth writers who helped to make what OEN is today.
I would appreciate it if you would leave 9/11 Truth well enough alone, and don't marginalize it by "linking" it or categorizing it among the "crazy" theories out there.
Thank you for your time.
Jon Gold
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
Jon
If you get another reply in, point him to the NYCCAN video. I wonder how he reconciles his 'edgy' label with that.
Rob's response...
Sorry it took so long to get back to you. The decision you referred to was made by the senior editorial team and I had to work with them to come up with a response to you.
We've created a hot page just for 911, totally separating it from the EDGES page. Your input made a difference.
We will still be maintaining a raised bar in terms of quality. I can't tell you how many broken record 911 submissions we get. But we've still been publishing 911 content and will continue to do so.
Perhaps, if you were involved in getting the word out about our change in policy, you'll consider letting people know about our new policy too.
best regards,
Rob Kall
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
broken record
"I can't tell you how many broken record 911 submissions we get"
I can't tell you how many broken record 9/11 references the government makes, trying to justify all sorts of impeachable offenses, wars and encroachments on civil liberties. What makes their broken record references more worthy than ours?
You can call it edgy, or you can give it a "special" page. This is some good pimping by Rob Kall, he makes his abuses seem like "preferential treatment".
They gave...
9/11 it's own link on the front page.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
Taxonomy
Point taken, and thanks so much for taking action here, before you think I'm not thankful for what you are doing. However:
When I click om 'Edges', listed in the column 'Op-Eds', I see:
under 'News', I see:
Under 'Life-Arts-Sci', I see:
What are these articles (Especially George Washington's) still doing in the 'Edges' section? Will articles about 9/11 be dually labeled as 'edgy' and '911'? Are these simply leftovers from previous decisions? Who decides if an article gets placed under the 'Edges' section, under the '911' section, or under both?
Nevertheless thanks again for taking action, I hope it turns out well.
A good sign?
This is encouraging to see in the Diary section.
http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=13387
Considering how dead the place has been for the last week perhaps Rob is rethinking his position.