The pathetic coverage of the media in regard to Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

[noise]

Is it too soon? Too traumatic? Exploitative?

The media has no credibility on 9/11. The media, on behalf of their political buddies (and in turn their war profiteering pals), has exploited the shit out of 9/11. They have ensured that the public is thoroughly traumatized by way of unrelenting terrorism related propaganda. One thing the media has not done is actually honored the victims of the attacks by pressing government officials to explain their conduct. Instead they meekly go along with extreme government secrecy claims and resort to selling the public on total bullshit explanations like watchlisting failures.

What we have today is a state of affairs in which government officials and media people are not subject to having their credibility questioned. So we end with 60 Minutes quoting CIA talking points to refute well sourced allegations of an obstructed al Qaeda investigation or swarms of media outrage when an actor says something inappropriate about 9/11.

[zeemike]

1. The media is just doing it's job

It's job is to tell us what to think in a way that entertains us and keeps us from thinking for ourselves.
And most of all to lend credibility to the official story that we are expected to believe...

[hack89]

2. I saw plenty of reviews

it wasn't ignored.

[zappaman]

3. 134 critics reviewed it

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/extremely_loud_and_incredibly_close/

To add perspective, only 89 reviewed this week's number one movie.

So, your premise is bunk.

[noise]

5. There wasn't a lack of coverage

The content of the coverage is pathetic.

[LARED]

7. Apparently pathetic = disagrees with

truther nonsense.

[noise]

8. Not at all

The CIA told us any suggestion it purposely refused to share critical information on the 9/11 plots with FBI is "baseless" and "these allegations diminish the hard work and dedication of countless CIA officers."

The Interrogator

This is awful journalism. Why didn't 60 Minutes interview CIA and FBI officials directly involved in the withholding? Unlike independent or alternative media the networks have access to power. For some reason they feel no obligation to use it in keeping with decent journalism standards.

[zappaman]

9. This has NOTHING to do with the movie.

Did you see Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close?
It's about a kid whose dad dies in the WTC and then finds some personal effects and goes on a scavenger hunt.
9/11 is only in it because that's how his dad dies. In fact, even the advertising went to great lengths saying "this is not a movie about 9/11".
So, how on earth is it pathetic coverage when the movie has NOTHING to do with how or why it happened?

[noise]

10. The same media worried about

the movie's effect on the public reports on stories like Ali Soufan's book. Or Mark Walhberg's comments. Or the secret assassination panels.

I find it strange to be warned about an exploitative movie by a media which has spent over ten years exploiting 9/11 while failing to explain how two hijackers were not detected for 20 months.

The media calls out film directors and actors for being insensitive or exploitative. I call out the media for being full of shit as they overlook their own conduct.

[zappaman]

11. "exploitative"

have you seen the movie?

[noise]

12. No n/t

[zappaman]

13. Yeah, I thought not. n/t

[noise]

14. Meaning what?

The thread isn't about the content of the movie. It's about the media's coverage in regard to all things 9/11 related.

As I posted: "Is it too soon? Too traumatic? Exploitative?" These were the aspects being discussed by the media in relation to the movie.

IMO the media has gotten a pass on their 9/11 coverage. Lared's comment was a good example as he equated criticism of the media with truther nonsense. I don't know why anyone would defend 60 Minutes' reporting.

[NoMoreWarNow]

18. that is their patented modus operandi

mainstream media is lapdogs for the elites-- and most alternative media is afraid of being marginalized/dismissed by the major media so won't touch 9/11 in a serious way.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. "well sourced allegations of an obstructed al Qaeda investigation"

Unpossible! We're told al Qaeda was framed to be the fall-guy for the inside job.

[noise]

6. It's impossible

because 60 Minutes was assured by a CIA spokesperson that the allegations are completely unfounded.

[GeorgeGist]

15. Perhaps it began with JFK ...

I'm mostly convinced the guardians don't want us to know how bad the truth is.

Hell knows, maybe I'd agree with them?

[noise]

16. You give them too much credit

It's a weird deal in that the political/media establishment acts like people are out of line for questioning authority. As if one is somehow advocating for al Qaeda by wondering why the intelligence community acted so strangely.

How could it be wrong for the public to wonder why the intelligence community was obstructing al Qaeda investigations before 9/11? If anyone was advocating for al Qaeda it was some people in the government who have never had to explain their conduct.

[RKP5637]

17. +1, n/t