Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
498http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/miss-n16.shtml, WSWS.org du 16 novembre 2010.
The New York Times carried its first article Monday on what appeared to be an unexplained missile launch off the coast of southern California. The article, buried at the bottom of page 16, came a full week after the event itself.
While the spectacular video of a giant contrail off the coast of southern California was shown by all of the major television networks, and the story was widely covered in most of the media, the Times maintained a discrete silence.
The article that finally appeared on November 14, entitled “How Smoky Plume in Sky Drew the Eyes of the World”, was more of a whimsical background piece than a hard news story.
Tucked within its fourth paragraph was the Pentagon’s vague explanation—delivered two days after the filming of the apparent missile launch by a television station helicopter—that “there is no evidence to suggest that this is anything other than a condensation trail from an aircraft.” This is followed by the Times’ observation: “Some experts chastised media outlets for running with a half-baked, whole-hyped story.”
The only expert cited was John E. Pike, the director of GlobalSecurity.org, who offered an interesting explanation for the prolonged silence of the US military in the face of media demands for an explanation of the massive plume over the Pacific.
“I think it temporarily confused the Pentagon,” said Pike. “They had to triple-check to see if they actually did have something going on out there, to see if there was some black [top secret] program they should not talk about.”
»According to the Times: “Mr. Leyvas said there were two copies of the unedited videotape of the Nov. 8 contrail, one that he has and one at the station. He and Scott Diener, the news director at KCBS, said there had been no effort by any government entity to obtain the unedited videotape, perhaps as part of an investigation into the incident.”
»“The media are the only people begging for the video,” Diener told the Times.
»In other words, there has been no investigation of the incident by the military, the civilian authorities or anyone in positions of governmental authority. What this suggests is that elements within the military and intelligence apparatus know very well what caused the plume and have no need to conduct such a probe. The airplane contrail explanation would appear to be not the product of objective evidence, but rather a useful alibi.
»
“Dodo”
-
