There was no fitting image for this post so – what the heck – I’ve just used Juliette again. If nothing else that’ll tempt you into wading through my prose.
I’ve noted how media critics of “conspiracy theories” aren’t just opposed to grandiose, unfounded claims but to suspicion of official or quasi-official narratives. Here are some notes on how the charge of “conspiracy theory” works to discredit this scepticism.
For example, with regards to the Pan Am attack, Geoffrey Robertson wasted no time in dismissing sceptics of Megrahi’s guilt…
If Megrahi was guilty of the Lockerbie bombing (and, conspiracy theories aside, the evidence justified the verdict), then Gaddafi must have given the order…
I will say this for Robertson: he’s remarkably efficient. What’s the point of explaining the biased procedure, dodgy witnesses and meager evidence of the prosecution when you can dismiss all scepticism as the work of minor nutjobs?
Reading mainstream coverage of dubious events you’d almost think that curiosity is the preserve of eccentrics. After the still-mysterious death of Gareth Williams, say, a Guardian reporter claimed it was among the “unexplained deaths that fuel conspiracy theories”. Not an unexplained death that calls for an explanation: a strange thing for strange people. The effect of this is to consign parapolitical investigation to the fringe; beyond respectable discourse. Kooky stuff. File it under “esoterica”.
This is evident when, er – “theorists” are promoted. The focus isn’t on their criticism of established theories but the narratives that some of them are propagating. I’m sure you’ve seen plenty of stories on Loose Change, for example, but there’s a decent chance you’ve never heard of Press for Truth. The Beeb put out a hit-piece on a smorgasboard of speculation titled 7/7: The Ripple Effect but didn’t talk with someone like Nafeez Ahmed. I’ve nothing against people constructing theories if they have the evidence to bolster them but the impression one receives is that there are two narratives: the accepted one and its conspiratorial opposite. Doubt isn’t an option.
The charge’s effectiveness as a tool for bullying critics of the powerful can be evidenced by their enthusiastic use of it. How did the U.S. government defend itself from opponents of Depleted Uranium? They accused them of being conspiracy theorists. How did Margaret Chan hit back at critics of WHO’s links with Big Pharma? She charged them with being conspiracy theorists. How did Blair treat his critics over the Iraq invasion? He said they were – well, I’m sure you can guess the rest.
How this trend developed is an interesting question. I might write a book on it. That’s not an idle threat.
May 26, 2011 at 11:30 am
As regards the propagation of alternative narratives, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
Just try pointing out the pretty obvious fact that it wasn’t Megrahi who bomberd Pan Am 103, and you’re likely to be met with a demand to explain “who did it then?” If you reply that you really don’t know, the chances are you’ll be blanked because obviously, unless you can come up with another culprit, it must have been Megrahi!
If on the other hand you point to the pretty strong circumstantial evidence against members of the PFLP-GC and their associates, and suggest that might be a productive area to investigate, you’ll be called a conspiracy theorist.
Actually, you’ll be called a conspiracy theorist anyway. In the minds of some, any suggestion of a miscarriage of justice is a “conspiracy theory” – at least right up to the moment the appeal court finds in the defendant’s favour. A case such as Lockerbie where the evidence suggesting the court got it wrong also suggests the prosecution and the judges were running a sweet little deal to make sure someone was nailed for that crime irrespective of the evidence, only multiplies that effect.
May 26, 2011 at 2:53 pm
On Wikipedia, a number of people are categorised as ‘Conspiracy theorists’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conspiracy_theorists).
I am in that category because I believe that the CIA ‘fitted up’ Gaddafi at the United Nations for both Pan Am Flight 103 and UTA Flight 772 (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=2298514&l=ac2dcdf6bc&id=1059719984).
Muammar Gaddafi is also one of Wikipedia’s conspiracy theorists, but can someone tell me why (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi)?
May 26, 2011 at 10:11 pm
In my view the doubts about Pan Am 103 are close to breaking out of the realm of being viewed as conspiracy theories in the mainstream media and by the public at large and will move into the realm of being views as real and justified doubt.
People used to trust their western governments but such trust is slowly eroding, and the internet plays a huge role in that. So do governments by betraying such trust.
May 27, 2011 at 2:03 am
Scepticism with regards to Lockerbie seems to be at least somewhat respectable. (I stumbled over some the other day in Kate Adie’s memoir. I knew she was a JFM signatory but, still, it took me by surprise.) It’s getting politicians to stop playing dumb and face up to it that’s the problem.
I’d be interested to see levels of public opinion. In Scotland, especially.
May 27, 2011 at 3:42 pm
What could be more respectable than wanting to ensure justice is administered properly and fairly?
If there is a conspiracy it is being orchestrated by those conspiring to circumvent real justice.
May 29, 2011 at 1:29 pm
(I thought this was a blog about the movie Chocolat)
However, as the definition says, “conspiracy theory: …it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any (often an outlandish) fringe theory…”.
And therefore, being able to label and ridicule adherents of an alternative scenario as a conspiracy theorist diminishes the power of their argument, a lot.
And as we discussed sometime earlier, in the case of Gareth Williams it can be used by the authorities (pro-actively) to ‘explain’ the events of a tragic death, when it was open to them to silence the reporting completely, if required, with their own version of the super-injunction, the DA-Notice.
Then, there’s the strange case of David Kelly…
May 29, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Ah, yes, the DA Notice. Did I mention this?
http://www.dnotice.org.uk/docs/9Nov2010.doc
June 9, 2011 at 6:25 pm
[...] parapolitical investigation into the realms of esoterica. When events remain mysterious the press don’t see them as opportunities for research but as wellsprings for [...]
June 17, 2011 at 2:45 am
[...] by proxy. (As a former ridiculer I should say it needn’t be intended – it’s the result of defects in our cultural [...]
July 4, 2011 at 10:53 pm
Thanks for the comment about Terry Jupp. I didn’t know that. The inquest took 8 years. A fascinating story. Have you mugged up on it since the inquest last summer ? Some very tight lipped witnesses. Much more to this than meets the eye. Probably not entirely unconnected from things Kelly.
July 8, 2011 at 1:51 am
To be honest, felix, I knew damn-near nothing about it. It’s a weird, weird case, though, so thanks for bringing it to the forefront of my attention.