Was Mike Ruppert Censored from KPFA?
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Ruppert
To: Pacifica Network News
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 10:08 PM
Subject: [CIA-DRUGS] KPFA Censors Mike Ruppert --
[A Message From Peter Dale Scott, Ph.D.
Hugh's note: the possibly fake, or at least mistakenly attributed, Peter Dale Scott preamble added to Ruppert's original e-mail posting relayed to the Internet on 2 April was very scary if true, or even if false. However, it contained a great deal of material that is outside the scope of the matter at hand, which is whether KPFA censored Ruppert from its air after Corn and Solomon attacked him. Therefore, it was never included in the original version of this document. Subsequently, in his 5 April open apology to Dennis Bernstein, Ruppert repudiated this preamble as allegedly forged disinformation, giving an even greater incentive to leave it out. Since Ruppert's apology, though, deals with a Pacifica matter, it is relevant and has been added here. A far more level-headed message from Scott, which was written in a completely different style, suggesting that the other may indeed have been bogus, was included in this document from the beginning, and it is still found here. Now we begin Ruppert's original e-mail posting:]
Within the last twenty-four hours I have been scrubbed from two pre-set programs on Pacifica Radio's KPFA in Berkeley. This is as a result of innuendo-laden and factually unsupported criticisms by Norman Solomon of FAIR and others lurking behind him like John Foster "Chip" Berlet. I have not only been denied free-speech access to public airwaves but I have been deprived of a most basic right in any democracy, the right to confront and challenge accusers who do not have the courage to engage in an open and unbiased debate.
Yesterday, as I tried to confirm a pre-scheduled appearance for April 3 with Dennis Bernstein on Flashpoints, a nervous Bernstein, upon taking my call said, "You're going to get me in trouble. I have to transfer you to my producer." After a ten minute hold I spoke to a curt Yun-Jongh Suh who told me - incorrectly - that because my assistant had failed to return a confirming call she had cancelled the show and Gee, Palestine was too important. My assistant confirmed to me that she had confirmed the show for me and placed it on my calendar. Then today, a second appearance with host Sue Supriano, also scheduled for April 3rd - that had definitely been confirmed by me - was abruptly cancelled after I was advised by Supriano that her producer, having just returned from vacation, and being very aware of an intense smear campaign against my publication "From The Wilderness," directed that this show also be cancelled in order to avoid controversy or possibly risk the host losing her show.
What is the source for these undemocratic and heavy-handed acts?
First there was an utterly meritless attack by David Corn of "The Nation" who used nothing but innuendo to disparage my post 9-11 research. He criticized a single and accurate citation of a press story in my 9-11 timeline and said that my reporting was biased because I did not list several negative stories about the subject - a former U.S. Naval officer, Delmart Vreeland. What Corn dishonestly failed to mention was that I had hired a full-time correspondent in Toronto to cover the story, traveled there twice myself to obtain court records and conduct interviews and, in no less than three original stories, reported on more negative allegations about the subject than had been printed in the stories Corn accused me of neglecting. Not once did Corn address the undisputed FACTS of the case; namely that Vreeland had written an accurate warning a month before the attacks.
A second and more insidious attack has been launched by Norman Solomon of FAIR. In a secretive internal memo Solomon has implied that I am a right-wing racist, accused me of being sloppy, and again failed to discuss a single one of the documented facts I have reported on since September 11th. Solomon's arguments included the fact the one of the web sites I recommend is that of Matt Drudge. Dishonestly, Solomon did not mention that I do not recommend or endorse Drudge for his editorial position. The reason that I recommend the site is because, from the home page, Drudge maintains links to about 100 of the world's largest press web sites, including that of The Nation. As one continually immersed in research I find it a convenient place to go and read stories from all over the world and just use the "Back" button to go to another site. I have been emailed that Drudge even maintains a link to Solomon's site. I just looked but couldn't find it - there are so many links on the page.
Solomon's second aspersion on my integrity as a journalist is the fact that I quoted Oliver North in one of my stories. Anyone who knows me and my story is aware that there are few people in the world that I like less than Oliver North. But an effective writer often quotes his enemies when their words serve to make his point. Such is the essence of debate. Solomon apparently knows little on this subject.
Solomon concludes his internal character assassination by implying that I am a right-wing racist. He neglects to mention that after my televised confrontation with CIA Director John Deutch in 1996, I was endorsed by the Black American Political Action Committee (BAPAC) and the Los Angeles (Black) Baptist Ministerial Conference. He forgets to mention that I have spoken to the IWW International and for the All African People's Revolutionary Party. Nor does he mention that I have shared a podium with former Black Panther Dhoruba bin-Wahad or been publicly addressed as "My white son," by Pacifica Board member Dick Gregory. There is nothing anywhere in my history or any of my writings to support a charge of right-wing or racist. I made Chip Berlet retract libelous statements to that effect last year and I have the records to prove that also.
But the mindless and the unqualified leaders within Pacifica will take a slight, offhand comment in shameful co-dependency and thus disserve their greatest responsibility - to fearlessly serve the truth. Unless they are willing to shoulder that responsibility they have no place protecting public airwaves. It is my research, and the fact that the facts cannot be disputed, that is really what this oppressive censorship is all about.
Neither Solomon nor Corn nor Martin Lee nor any of those who I am told are working feverishly to ban me from Pacifica's airwaves will comment upon the documented facts of my research - except by innuendo. None of them will address my documentation of insider trading before 9-11. Not one of them will address the undisputed court evidence that Delmart Vreeland wrote a warning of the 9-11 attacks a month before they happened. None of them will address the fact that fighters were deliberately not scrambled after the simultaneous hijackings of four commercial airliners when it has been standard procedure for more than 25 years to do so. Not one of them will address the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in 1997 that the next war would be where we are fighting today and that the American people would never support such a venture absent an attack on America of the magnitude of Pearl Harbor. None of them will dare come near me and my research in the healthy spirit of intellectual honesty that is required for a democracy to flourish because they cannot win that fight.
Instead, Pacifica in general, and KPFA in particular, is demonstrating repressive tactics worthy of the Gestapo while posing as a champion of free speech.
I salute and thank all of my friends and supporters within the Pacifica Network like Dick Gregory, Kellia Ramares, Bonny Faulkner, Tracy Larkins, Ian Johnson, Sue Supriano, Eben Rey, Roy of Hollywood and many others. These people know and understand what is happening here and they see the blatant unfairness of these tactics. I salute and am grateful for the continued support of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, a true hero.
In a free society what matter are the facts. When I am not censored and when my critics emerge with honor to face me and discuss differences on the basis of fact, then Pacifica might be entitled to claim the mantle of "Protector of Free Speech."
The weak-kneed management policies which foster such behavior remind me of a standing joke among therapists. KPFA managers and producers are like sheep, running for the protected, politically-correct cover of sacred icons, to wrap themselves in the warm and dysfunctional clothing of the co-dependent.
Therapists joke about a co-dependent wife who reports for her first day of treatment. The therapist asks, "How do you feel about coming here?" "I don't know," says the wife. "I'll have to ask my husband."
So it is with the fearful at Pacifica. What your listeners want is a fair presentation of the evidence so that they can judge for themselves without having to ask Norman Solomon, David Corn, or Noam Chomsky what to think. I give Pacifica listeners that much credit and their response to my fund raising efforts on Pacifica's behalf shows that this is the brain and soul food for which they hunger.
Michael C. Ruppert www.copvcia.com
-------------------------------------------------------
A MESSAGE FROM PROFESSOR PETER DALE SCOTT
I am distressed to hear that KPFA, a supposedly liberal and open-minded institution, is denying Mike Ruppert the right to be heard. Have any reasons been advanced for this censorship?
I have known Mike Ruppert quite well for at least two years. He is a zealous seeker after truth; and especially recently, has unearthed a number of important stories which he was the first to break. One of them, about Attorney-General Ashcroft's failure to recuse himself in a DOJ investigation of Exxon-Mobil in Central Asia, is extremely important. I have posted it on my own website at http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/qfmobil.html.
Mike Ruppert goes after breaking stories. In so doing, he runs the risk that some of these stories will look different with the benefit of hindsight. However I am not aware of anything he has said, written, or done recently, that would justify denying him access to the airwaves of KPFA.
If KPFA is to persist in this policy, they should explain their reasons for doing so immediately. I would request that they send their explanation both to him and to me.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Dale Scott
English Department,
University of California, Berkeley CA 94720.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Solomon"
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 5:36 PM
Subject: [Feel free to forward/post] Some comments re: Michael Ruppert
April 4, 2002
[From Norman Solomon]
A few people have suggested that I respond to a statement
written by Michael Ruppert that has circulated in recent days. The
following brief comments address a few factual matters and summarize
some of my concerns.
* Ruppert wrote: "I have not only been denied free-speech access to
public airwaves [KPFA Radio] but I have been deprived of a most basic
right in any democracy, the right to confront and challenge accusers
who do not have the courage to engage in an open and unbiased debate."
But Ruppert did not mention that he had already been heard
previously and extensively on KPFA, without challenge. As for the
last half of his sentence, while my name is the first one he mentions
in his letter, he doesn't mention that I accepted an invitation from
KPFK Radio in Los Angeles to debate with him on March 1, and that
debate aired live for a full hour.
* With reference to Ruppert's much-hyped claims about the
significance of the Vreeland story in Canada, Ruppert faults
columnist David Corn: "Not once did Corn address the undisputed FACTS
of the case; namely that Vreeland had written an accurate warning a
month before the attacks."
That is a good example of highly unreliable characterizations.
The note that Ruppert refers to as "an accurate warning" of the
September 11 attacks was nothing of the kind, as a look at the actual
scribblings makes clear. It's quite a fantastic leap to extract
an "accurate warning" from those ambiguous rambling snippets of words
and phrases.
As someone who's been a progressive activist for about 30 years
and a media critic for most of that time, I believe that progressives
should maintain solid standards for evaluating ostensible logic and
documentation in all situations. (By the way, while Ruppert's letter
identifies me as "Norman Solomon of FAIR," I don't speak for the
organization; I'm a FAIR "associate" and not on its staff.)
* Ruppert acknowledged just that "one of the web sites I recommend
is that of Matt Drudge."
But Ruppert has not just listed Matt Drudge's site as "one of"
the web sites he recommends. Ruppert's site has quoted himself as
saying that Drudge's site is his (Ruppert's) favorite site on the web.
* Ruppert wrote that I had written a "secretive internal memo."
There was nothing "secretive" about the three-page letter dated
March 7 that I sent to a KPFA staff member, with the prior
understanding that it would be xeroxed and shared with people who
work at KPFA; which is what happened.
In the letter, I discussed cases in point about Ruppert's
approach as well as his overall approach: "Some of the problem is in
how he characterizes news reports. These citations can be narrowly
factual yet presented in a misleading way. Yes, such-and-such
newspaper reported that thus-and-so claim was made by so-and-so. The
paper reported on the claim, but that doesn't mean the claim is
true." I described it as a "selective vacuum cleaner approach" --
"pulling in whatever supports a thesis and excluding context and
perspectives that undermine it."
I added: "But even if we accepted the idea that many of the
reported claims are factual claims and not just reported, Ruppert
tends to use convoluted substitutes for logic in his eagerness to
make the case for CIA 'foreknowledge' and U.S. government 'criminal
complicity' in what happened September 11. When connecting the dots,
many innuendos and suppositions are so central to the case that logic
sometimes points backwards. So, the fact that oil companies and the
Bush administration have done all they can to take advantage of
September 11 events is
presented by Ruppert as backing up his claim of their 'foreknowledge'
and 'complicity.'"
And: "Does Ruppert include some interesting and solid
information in his mish-mash? Sure. But such information is available
from a lot of researchers who are, in contrast, progressive -- and
who don't combine the solid information with fast-and-loose
machinations that reach specious conclusions.... Aren't the well-
documented crimes of the U.S. government and huge corporations enough
to merit our ongoing outrage, focused attention and activism?"
Norman Solomon
mediabeat@igc.org
------------------------------
From: "Mike Ruppert" <mruppert@copvcia.com>
Subject: FW: An Open Apology to Dennis Bernstein PLUS a comment on a forged
copy of my message involving Peter Dale Scott
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 19:48:41 -0800
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Ruppert [mailto:mruppert@copvcia.com]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 7:47 PM
To: Dennis Bernstein ; Pacific News Service (sclose@pacificnews.org)
Subject: An Open Apology to Dennis Bernstein PLUS a comment on a forged copy of my message involving Peter Dale Scott
Importance: High
Dear Dennis:
I had been intending to send this message out as long as 48 hours ago but, as a result of a very professional hacking of our web site and computer system - which is documented - I was unable to do so. In addition, I did not have your email address until just now.
For your reference I have attached the original message which I sent out on April 2. You will see what I believe is an accurate representation of events as they occurred. In addition I ask that all who have received a tampered version of that message, including very unfavorable and unfounded accusations about Israel and linking same to Professor Peter Dale Scott, to compare those messages with what I sent out. That message is clearly a COINTELPRO-style disinformation attempt.
First, let me say clearly that I never believed for a moment that you personally had any intent to keep me off of the air. I was concerned by the tone in your voice when I called that sounded very pressured. I have great respect for both your courage and your willingness to stand in the trenches against very nasty opposition and I have never thought otherwise. However, the conversation with your producer left me with a different impression, especially since we all know that my investigations have been a hot topic of late. There is no doubt, however, in my mind that the near-simultaneous cancellation of my show with Sue Supriano was a form of censorship because that is how it was explained to me.
These simultaneous events obviously appeared connected. And in the context of the internal memo from Mr. Solomon the conclusion I reached was shared by many others. I was contacted shortly after my posting by both Catherine Austin Fitts and Peter Dale Scott. There are few people anywhere in the world I hold in higher esteem than these two. Both advised me that you were under intense pressure for your brave coverage of events in the Middle East and that whatever happened with my appearance had nothing to do with you or your feelings. As I said above I didn't blame you to begin with. I was hesitant to call you back because your statement that I was "going to get you in trouble" made me reluctant. I didn't want to make anything worse for you. That's the LAST thing I want to do!
So please accept my sincere apologies if anything was misconstrued so as to make you or anyone think that I was criticizing or attacking you personally. It just ain't so! If anything, add my voice to those who to support you in your coverage of controversial stories at a difficult time. I want to support you, not attack you.
Sincerely,
Mike Ruppert
www.copvcia.com
From: Steve Rendall
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 18:40:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Solomon on Ruppert
Norman Solomon has never called for the silencing of Ruppert as some earlier posts here have stated. He has called for scrutiny of Ruppert's often unreliable research and conclusions.
Just look how Ruppert handles a simple matter of fact: He states below that he is not being permitted to face his detractors. They will not debate him openly. Then he names Norman Solomon as one of his primary detractors. One might logically conclude then that Norman would refuse any debate with Ruppert, right?
Wrong, it's a fact that Norman debated Ruppert for an hour on KPFK.
Need more proof that Ruppert's not always a reliable or accurate correspondent?
Go to Ruppert's website and check out his citations and conclusions. But make sure you go to the original sources he cites and see what they really say...don't depend on what he _says_ they say. In some significant cases the documents do not match up with Ruppert's claims.
Ruppert and Schoenman were given hour after hour of airtime (initially under the Besse Wash regime) to talk conspiracy. They were both apparently very good for fundraising. (Silly me, I think the _established facts_ about Bush, the CIA, etc., are enough to show how bad things are and why progressives should be mobilizing.)
Are these guys with their unchallenged and unreliable stories bad for Pacifica and it's stations?
To put it bluntly: If we want vital Pacifica news and public affairs shows like Democarcy Now! to have ZERO impact on the national political discussion, then by all means let's program them next to shows that spout misrepresentations and stretch facts to fit tales of intrigue. These shows may well discredit Pacifica's more reliable shows.
It may be happening already. Every Friday morning immediately following Democracy Now! on WBAI you can hear Ralph Schoenman and Mya Schoen for two hours. The show is called Taking Aim.
Should these folks be banished? Of course not. Should they be given a shows to tell their unreliable stories, comfortable in the knowledge that their claims will never face challenge? I sure don't think so.
-sr
From: Renteria22@aol.com
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 16:44:06 EDT
Subject: [NewPacifica] Re: And now, a message from the thought police
I don't follow Ruppert or other conspiracy theorists, and I don't think that the US government _was_ esentially demcratic until it was "taken over" by a cabal of some kind, whatever factionalization exists among the ruling class.
That said, however, Soloman's letter to KPFA re Ruppert is transparently weak. The letter itself is subject to most of the kinds of critical errors Soloman raises against Ruppert.
It seems odd to me that first we see Bernstein attacked as a conspiracy theorist, now this piece with Ruppert.
I can't help but view it as an odd concentration of a larger question regarding Pacifica programming as we move through this transition and toward a revised understanding of the Mission in programming.
That question is whether or not Pacifica as a whole will take a radical stand toward the powers that be or whether it will continue down the well worn path of deadly dull reformism and pro Democratic Party politics that characterized PNN and that apparently characterizes the KPFA news as well as so much of the programming at KPFK, with its penchant for interviewing 'former' intelligence officials.
I have no idea whether Ruppert's evidence is credible, but for any objective analyst of the historical and verifiable record it is unquestionable that the powers that be are capable of such crimes. And _that_ question, it seems to me, is at the core of this debate and hsa great relevance to the question of the networks' mission in programming.
Rafael Renteria
From: Steve Rendall
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 23:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Errol, Mimi, Miguel?
Norman is the director of the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA), which is an independent group. That is his full-time job. Norman does not work for FAIR. He did more than 13 years ago in 1989. The facts are the same today as yesterday and the day before: Norman is not paid by FAIR and has not been for years.
He is listed as a FAIR associate, as are Sam Husseini and Laura Flanders and about a dozen other folks. These people are more or less in FAIR's orbit, but are not paid except for when they occasionally write an article for us.
Norman also writes a column that is distributed by the mainstream sydicator, Creators Syndicate. That column appears on FAIR's website free of charge. We're glad to have it.
Though we respect Norman greatly, he is not on FAIR's staff and plays no role in the management of FAIR which is an authentic collective run by its six current employees: Janine Jackson, Jim Naureckas, Deborah Thomas, Peter Hart and Rachel Coen and myself.
It is inaccurate to say "FAIR's Norman Solomon." To insist on it (as Ruppert does), is about as accurate as saying "FAIR's Edward Asner," as Ed has been on our advisory board for years. As many on this board know, Ed has another job. So does Norman.
I hope that clears things up.
-sr
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 15:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [NewPacifica] Ramares/Solomon/Ruppert/KPFA
Letter from Kellie Ramares to KPFA LAB
re Norman Solomon' s letter re Ruppert:
Dear LAB and community,
I am leaving town in a few hours and so cannot be here to address you myself.
The last 6 weeks have been terribly stressful for me as an exciting new public affairs program, which I helped to create, has ignited a battle over an old issue: who determines the programming direction of a station that calls itself "Listener-Sponsored, Free Speech, Community Radio": the listeners, or an elite corps of staff and their "expert" friends?
Not counting some reruns, Guns & Butter: The Economics of Politics has done 7 shows (counting a two-part interview as separate shows). Throughout its brief history, listeners have graced the show with favorable calls to the station to inquire when it would be on again, with emails thanking the producers for their work and asking for tapes, and, of course, with over $17K in pledges. One memorable compliment to the show came several months ago, when Ken Freeland, an activist in Houston, called activists in our listening area to ask about possible public affairs programming for a soon-to-be liberated KPFT. He told me that someone recommended Guns & Butter, calling it "necessary listening."
As much as I personally think that what Mike Ruppert is reporting on the 9-11 story is "necessary listening", it is only one story in the history and future of KPFA. The enduring issue I think the LAB and the community needs to discuss is process.
And the process under which certain people at KPFA have accepted Norman Solomon's attacks on Mike Ruppert, and by implication on Bonnie Faulkner and me, has been shabby indeed. First of all, Solomon addressed his letter to Philip Maldari, not to us. He exchanged email with me on February 28th and did not raise his issues. That he expected his letter to be copied and passed out does not make up for this insult. If people have concerns about a program, they should ask the programmers.
I sent Maldari a short preliminary response by email, saying that Solomon's comments were slanderous of Mike, insulting to GNB's listeners and disrepectful of us as programmers. It promised a rebuttal, which I admit was long in coming, but no one inquired as to its progress. I wonder how widely distributed my email message was.
Solomon's letter did not acknowledge two apparent conflicts of interest: Solomon is an associate of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, the organization that produces CounterSpin. Guns & Butter pre-empted CounterSpin the day we aired the Ruppert lecture. And while Solomon called for KPFA not to use Rupperts materials as pledge premiums, he did not divulge that he is a contributor to a new book on 9-11, which was released a month after we offered Ruppert's video as a premium. Is he afraid of a little competition?
Solomon carries a lot of influence and before long, the opinion that Ruppert's credibility was suspect was lodging in the minds of other people who knew little or nothing of his work. This includes my news co-director, Aileen Alfandary, who said, "We have to be concerned about credibility here." She said this even though she later admitted to me that she was not very familiar with Ruppert's work, and she later apologized to Bonnie for any unintended upset. But for me the damage had already been done because I could see a reporter doubting my programming without questioning me about it first. SInce she has supervised my work on the Evening News, for three years I would have thought her observations of what I have accomplished in that time would at least merit an inquiry before an outsider's editorial judgment was valued over my own.
Next came discussions in the Editorial Board, to which Bonnie and I were never invited. These discussions apparently resulted in some sort of "Gentleperson's Agreement", for lack of a better term, to discourage programmers from bringing Ruppert to air. They succeeded in at least one case, that of Sue Supriano of Seven Generations.
Someone even had the lack of class to post on a bulletin board Solomon's letter next to an email praising Guns & Butter and asking if the Ruppert lecture would be rerun. That bulletin board is dedicated to favorable comments about KPFA and particular programs. I have never seen a hit piece, and that's what Solomon wrote, a hit piece, placed on that board. It's probably still up there, because in the name of Free Speech, I refused to take it down. But I wonder who posted it.
For me the atmosphere is poisoned at KFPA. I'm taking a long weekend out of town to recover from the ill effects of rage I've suffered in the last 6 weeks as I have spent many days, that I should have been spent reporting, formulating a response to that hit piece and a follow-up email attack by one of CounterSpin's Co-hosts, Steve Rendall.
Bonnie and I worked very hard to edit a 3.5 hour lecture down to 46 mins while retaining its coherence. We must have done a good job: 86% of the callers ordered Ruppert's video, which indicates they heard enough to want more information. Engaged listeners who want to learn more are the lifeblood of KPFA.
They, not a self-interested professional critic, should have the most influence in what goes on KPFA's air. I thank them for their support.
Sincerely,
Kellia Ramares
steven starr
I put the Ruppert Drive debate together at the last minute, as a result of my own reservations at the time about Mike's POV. As a result of my last minute format change, it's clear I prevented Mike (and Norman Solomon, and Eben Ray, for that matter) from having ample time to prepare a better show. That's my mistake, I own it. But if scrambling to make some kind of good decision, under deadline and ideologic assault from both sides, makes me some kind of 'intellectual author', well, thanks. I guess.
I did make a public statement, in a widely disseminated pre-emptive letter to the LA Weekly. I've also written Mike privately expressing my point of view on the matter. Further, I hope Mike gets back on the air at KPFK, as I think he has something interesting to say.
steven
# # #