At an April 15th press conference on the Boston Marathon bombing reporters from corporate media outlets arrived to play their typical roles as “stenographers to power,” throwing routine softball questions to federal, state and local authorities, including Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick.
Unexpectedly, however, Dan Bidondi, a reporter working for alternative news outlet Infowars.com, was the sole member of the press to fire off two poignant questions–questions, mind you, that every other media outlet should have been posing, especially in light of recent history and immediate evidence suggesting how the deadly bombing was part of an elaborate emergency drill.
“Was there any prior knowledge though? Because according to Boston Globe dot com [law enforcement authorities] said they were doing drills this morning for the same exact thing to happen? Now was youz guyz given any prior warning ahead of time of this taking place?”
After Bidondi persisted with the following questions, officials appeared perturbed and apprehensive, apparently cutting the press conference short to avoid further queries on the nature of the event and its broader implications for civil liberties.
“Well, sir, why were loudspeakers telling people in the audience to be calm moments before the bomb[s] went off? Is this another false flag staged attack to take our civil liberties and put more Homeland Security sticking their hands down our pants on the streets?”
Such efforts were almost immediately countered as “conspiracy theories” by the likes of Snopes and Salon–two outlets that have been at the forefront of defending the untenable official account of the Sandy Hook shooting. Yet in light of momentous historical events over the past twenty years, including Oklahoma City, 9/11 and London 7/7, where subsequent in-depth research has suggested probable government foreknowledge or complicity, in addition to the fact a majority of “domestic terrorist” events are orchestrated by the FBI, the questions Bidondi posed are among the first that journalists should be asking after such an incident.
Regardless of one’s political stance, a free society requires the press to hold those in power accounta ble. Indeed, if the United States had a genuinely free and independent media such questions would not only be asked, but followed by rigorous interrogation of the event to determine whether public officials are being truthful and calling them out before the public when they are not.
A multitude of evidence has already emerged in just the past few days suggesting government involvement in the Boston bombing. Note, however, that none of this information has been ferreted out or acknowledged by major news outlets, all of which appear poised to dutifully play up the emotional elements of the tragic event and its violent fallout, contributing to the mass psychological effect that will provide additional rationale for a heightened police state.