I do not agree with the article in question. It is being held up as an example of propaganda.
Notice the titles.
Why did this story drive the whole country nuts? Because we traded rights for “security,” and didn’t get either.
There was definitely a bargain. It happened long before 9/11. The subtitle’s second sentence is a paraphrasing of a Benjamin Franklin quote. It is an absolutely valid quote. “Those willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. This is an appeal to Libertarians, US Constitutionalists, the Conspiracy Theory crowd, for them to lend an ear.
So why did it drive the country nuts? Well besides the obvious psychological trauma it causes, with images on every screen of panic and police, reminding everyone of the ubiquitous terrorist threat. There as yet still has not been any kind of a motive presented, or any definitive evidence linking the accused in the bombing.
The article begins with an appeal to emotion. A reminder of all the heroes of the day, creating the black and white sides, good guys versus bad. It then goes on to talk about the ‘national freakout’ which is caused by the spread of news of the bombing. The paragraph ends by shaming ‘the self appointed internet sleuths’, and anyone else
So hold on now, why is it perceived that the internet has shamed itself in the investigation? Was there ever any expectation in the first place? The problem here is that the Television News is showing itself to be increasingly irrelevant. They are having to respond directly to the internet at an increasing rate. So if people on the internet are the ones breaking news, this increases the importance of officials interfacing with the public directly online as well. Once this cycle completes the television 24 hours news cycle will be almost completely irrelevant except from a sheer entertainment perspective. Those that want to sit and be numbed by the glow of the box. The point is that ‘they’ are scared of the increasing numbers online and the new found abilities of the public to interface with each other in a way previously unknown. When was the last time you heard of a citizen’s investigation into anything? The internet may not have caught or even come close to identifying the suspects fingered by the powers that be, (TPTB) but the fact remains that they tried to find the suspects. Next time there will be more people that join the hunt, as more people become aware of this phenomenon. This genuinely scares TPTB, so they must be discouraged, reminded that the internet is not real, and anyone can say anything. This much is true, anyone can say anything on the internet. Often, it is easy to tell if someone is telling the truth, using a variety of methods, sometimes it is not so simple and requires research into various topics. The point is that there is truth out there, lots of it, but there is also a lot of disinformation as well. This is done on purpose to distract and mislead, so that people squander time being led down primrose paths. If TPTB can discourage people from taking up an interest in the investigation in the first place, which is necessary given the success of crime shows like CSI, then there is less chance that during one of their actual events they are not caught red handed. Places where you are forced to surrender your cellphone may be considered these kinds of conditions.
Back to the article. Notice the dismissal of the Saudi in the article, as if he is completely insignificant. Why would he be apprehended in the first place? Why was he being looked at? Eerily reminiscent of 9/11 Saudis being flown out. If you look into who the Saudi actually is, you may see his relevance. But the author of the article dismisses it out of hand and goes on shortly after to bash reddit again specifically. Discouragement. Don’t talk about this less you risk shame and ridicule online. (sarcasm)
The rest of the article goes off on various tangents, but all rely on the premise that the two accused are essentially guilty and thus is not really so relevant. It continues on and gets progressively more aggressive in language attempting to stir up emotion in the context that the author is writing about. Keep in mind that the article itself is aimed at the libertarian mindset. Again the article finishes with a reference to Ben Franklin and the founding of America.
The powers that be are scared of public opinion on the internet. CISPA will likely pass this time around. The internet is being clamped down on everywhere possible. Manipulations of public opinion online are only marginally effective, however they are getting better. Reddit went very meta this week, exposing some ugliness, as well as some self analysis. The trolls and shills were both out in full force and exposed. I wouldn’t be surprised if the site collapses similar to the way Digg did, this may develop into a cycle. Perhaps this heavy handedness online is a reaction to the knee jerk response of elements of the public discovering terms like ‘false flag’ and discovering sites like reddit and subs like r/conspiracy. The danger is of course the expansion of the narrative. If more and more people realize the previous deceptions of the rogue elements of the government and become more aware of its functional abilities and power bases this in turn weakens their power through exposure, potentially bringing many other elements down with it. The internet is dangerous to secrecy. It is dangerous to TPTB. Public opinion is slipping away from their cable television stranglehold and being allowed to voice its own opinion. When people are allowed to make up their own minds, and do not blindly follow any more how do you control them?