Dear Amy Goodman:
We, the undersigned, would like to state that the recent (5/26/04)
appearance of David Ray Griffin on Democracy Now! (DN) repudiates
every principle of press freedom that you claim to represent. It
was a shameful betrayal to the movements opposing the
Bush Regime around the globe.
First of all, it is very revealing that you chose to have Griffin appear on your
show in a hostile “debate” format. This contrasted remarkably from the easy,
non-confrontational (and extended) interviews recently given to Richard Clarke, Peter Lance and
Sibel Edwards. (Richard Clarke is a “defector” from the Bush Regime. Peter Lance
is an author. Edwards is a “whistle-blower”. All three uniquely advocate the
official story of 911.) The clear implication is that DN is biased in favor of
sources who advocate the official propaganda of the State.
Second, while Chip Berlet’s affiliation with the Political Research Associates (PRA)
was made known, you failed to mention the controversy related to PRA’s alleged ties to the Ford Foundation:
It is also known that the Ford Foundation has a long-term connection with
Democracy Now and Pacifica generally:
Recall that the Ford Foundation has been reportedly linked to the CIA for decades.
By specifically choosing Berlet to challenge Griffin this episode
of Democracy Now! strongly resembles a CIA propaganda campaign.
Third, Berlet’s major contention against Griffin’s book is that Griffin is
relying on experts who lack the qualifications to offer opinions about basic
engineering and physics. So why not have on an expert promoting the official
science of the Bush Regime with one of the many researchers who dispute it? We are
appalled by Democracy Now's guest Berlet demanding that Griffin defend the scientific
work of researchers who have never been invited to appear on your program.
Fourth, Berlet specifically (and very crudely) dismissed the crucial research of
"Holmgren" (i.e., Gerard Holmgren). If Democracy Now! does not invite Holmgren
on to defend his highly significant work then it is working on behalf of no democracy
that has ever existed.
Fifth, during Griffin’s ordeal he made many important points concerning
specific anomalies with 911 (e.g., the Pentagon, WTC 7, etc.)
that were ignored by Berlet. When will these be addressed on your program?
Lastly, we’d like to emphatically state that the science which disputes the
official story of 911 can be understood by almost every high school graduate
in your audience. By having Berlet and Goodman both dismiss Griffin's sources because
they lack some unspecified credentials Democracy Now! seemed medieval. Surely DN
can no longer claim to represent "Resistance Radio" when it discourages its
audience from making the most basic of inquiries about the innumerable flaws with the official
story of 911.
Until Democracy Now reexamines what happened on 9/11/01 with some
intellectual integrity we will regard you and
your program to be speaking on behalf of the CIA. To quote the Clash, you are
solidly "Working for the Clampdown."
--on behalf of 911 researchers:
Rosalee Grable (a.k.a., the Web Fairy)
Jeffrey G Strahl