Journalist Brooke Gladstone, host of public radio’s “On the Media” joins Michael Krasny in the studio. Her new book, “The Influencing Machine” is an illustrated history of the news media.

Brooke Gladstone, host and managing editor of NPR's "On the Media"

  • Media Echo Chamber

    They’re belittling skeptics about the media by calling them schizophrenics? That is low and desperate.

    • radical peacenik

      Yeah…Schizophrenics usually have much more organized thought processes than 9/11 conspiracists….

      • Rufus

        What a nasty thing to say. You don’t seem like much of a “peacenik”. You’re a hater. As for truthers, they rely on science and logic, unlike you and your hate.

        • Victronix01

          It’s amazing how they have to resort to describing everyone who disagrees with them as mentally ill.

  • Lee Thé

    The worst
    sin I see committed on political talk shows is hosts allowing aggressive right
    wing guests to interrupt centrists and left wing guests constantly, so that the
    liberals never get to complete a thought. And of course if a host doesn’t
    permit this, the host, the program, the network and its advertisers get an
    avalanche of phone calls, emails and letters, marshaled by right wing websites.


    Next is the
    host tossing nothing but softballs to guests with similar political leanings. This is done all the time by both conservative and liberal hosts.

  • Cathy

    I’m wondering what Ms. Gladstone thinks of the News Hour. This is one of the most objective programs out there,in my opinion. But they seem to take a very cautious approach as to weighing what is factual and exploitive and it’s overall relevance to it’s impact on society.

    On another note, while I agree, for example, those such as global warming skeptics should not be given equal time, but sometimes I wish NPR would have on a guest like this on a panel. I would love to hear counter arguments to them to have the ability to better argue and educate those I come across in my personal life.

    • radical peacenik

      I watch the Newshour religiously and am a big fan. One of my concerns in the past few years has been the financial support of big corporate donors whose “advertisements” have become so much a part of the Newshour’s bread and butter.

       I also feel that these corporations choose to sponsor the Newshour and become affiliated with it in order to lend their (often horrific) corporate practices some legitimacy. (Not to mention that their ads are often demeaning and insulting to women and minorities.)

       What gives? Wish Michael would do a show on this…

  • Media Echo Chamber

    Gladstone is a conspirator and bald-faced liar.

    • Are they paying her for her complicity? As well as the tens of thousands of members of the national press? How about the same number of members of the political apparatus? And the military? Your parents? The pets?

      How can you imagine such a huge, integrated, perfectly executed conspiracy? Where is the 9-11 Bradly Manning? Bueller?

      • Media Echo Chamber

        To imagine that no conspiracy can exist because it involves powerful people, powerful corporations and their Uncle Toms in the media is to let all such people off the hook without any thought given. It is the duty of every citizen to question authority, not believe authority or blindly obey it.
        Gladstone is an eager liar. She should be fired.

        • So the fact that conspiracies CAN sometimes happen means that we MUST believe every conspiracy we hear, even when the new conspiracy contradicts the old conspiracy?

        • Radical peacenik

          Uncle Tom’s? Really? What century are you living in my friend?

      • Nat’l Petroleum Radio listener

        As expected, Krasny and Co dodged the question about the facts of 9/11 – the official (government/media supported) conspiracy theory these professionals believe in falls on its face with the facts: WTC 7 is the first steel building in the history of modern construction to fall. By sidestepping anybody with a real argument- they sound more like fox news- (QUICK! get any real dissent off the air as fast as possible. )  Dodging sane people who make rational arguments makes a mockery of the institution the pretend to respect. 

        Respond with facts, not ad hominem attacks.

        • What is there motivation? How does the invisible power of the government coordinate such a huge, multi-part conspiracy?

          • Rufus

            Dare to look at the facts, rather than childishly denouncing anyone who questions.
            Watch the documentary 911 Mysteries, for instance. It’s on Youtube in full.

          • Dare to use your naturally endowed ability to reason, rather than speak like a comic book character. For the half-formed conspiracies to be true, a huge proportion of the entire country would have had to be involved, and at that point, why not just achieve your goals through voting?

            Seriously, do you think Noam Chomsky is a fascist stooge?

          • Rufus

            Aneece, you are a coward, plain and simple.

          • Nothing about 9-11 being an inside job is more disturbing to me than our history of slavery, genocide against the Native Americans, illegal invasion of Iraq, or mass incarceration of blacks. I’m frightened by the raw failure of reasoning displayed by you and the other conspiracy theorists. There WAS a conspiracy! By Al Qaeda! It fits the facts most completely. Your versions (and there are a million mutually exclusive conspiracy theories) require an unbelievable amount of people and planing. There is just know evidence of this.

          • Nat’l Petroleum Radio listener

            She believes that we can do really bad things in the world -but Not THAT bad thing- nooooo, that we could never do. Logic- not endowed to most Physics majors. Ad hominem attacks about you seeing mental health staff- that she can do..

          • Victronix01

            >> I’m frightened by the raw failure of reasoning displayed by you and the other conspiracy theorists.

            It has nothing to do with reasoning, and everything to do with people’s fears about questioning official proclamations.  Aneece has no basis to understand the information and rejects it just as the Bush Administration told everyone to (“We will not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories”).  Many people then mindlessly go out and do the work for Administration officials who want everyone to just shut up and agree.

          • Nat’l Petroleum Radio listener

            You really don’t need to be involved- you really just need to think you know everything already. Aneece – you use of the term “half-formed” ! belies the fact you haven’t a clue what your opposing argument is. Its beneath you to look, america needs YOU! (to stifle dissent with half-formed critiques- addressing none of the facts other’s ask you to look at)

          • Victronix01

            Noam Chomsky, like all of us, has limitations.  He is not a god.  He is a linguist who does very good political analysis.  We don’t see Noam at the front of the peace marches or getting arrested or  doing anything remotely like what Bradley Manning just did, for a reason — Chomsky is a human being.  Many many people are afraid to even consider the idea that the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen, if not worse. 

            It is not the “government” who did 9/11 — I work for the government myself! — it was insiders.  Who were those people, with high-level access?  I recommend this article:


          • So you work for the government, both Brooke and Noam don’t, but somehow SHE’S a liar and a fascist, but Noam is just “limited”? Even though they both have the same basic opinion about this?

          • Victronix01

            I never said anyone was a liar or a fascist.  As it turns out, there is more than one person posting in support of 9/11 truth.

          • So you strongly condemn calling Brooke and Michael liars and fascists. They’re just other rational actors who have the temerity to dissagree with you?

          • Nat’l Petroleum Radio listener

            Well, a keen look at history easily answers your question: Do what they did the last time. Have you not heard of the gulf of tonkin incident? LBJ officials (alive today) admitted that it is a false flag operation to start a war.
            Proven, documented facts..
            Thats why they hustled real debate off the air quickly.Fear keeps people in line- The laws of Physics (that dispute the official government propagated conspiracy theory) should set you free.Gravity doesn’t lie- steel doesn’t melt with open flame- physics is all you need to know to dispute bogus conspiracy theories directly injected by the media. The conspiracy depends directly on your blind acceptance of what they tell you Aneece.As we have seen time and time again- raise a Dehumanized scapegoat and most will accept it -(jews circa 1930’s, communist Vietnamese circa 1960, muslims circa 2000)
            Then you can spend billions of other people money to murder minorities with impunity.
            [They dubbed a tape of Osama, and they said it was proof,
            “Jealous of our freedom,” I can’t believe you bought that excuse,] Immortal Technique “Cause of Death” 

          • I’m a physics major. There was enough energy available to create molten steel in the crater, but the building would have fallen long before the steel actually changed state. Again, the Gulf of Tonkin fraud was eventually exposed by people on the inside. Where are one of the literally thousands of people who would have HAD to know about this? Why hasn’t one of them come forward?

          • Victronix01

            Wouldn’t the orchestration of the attack by insiders
            have necessitated the involvement of large numbers of people?

            Not in the execution of the attack.
            A conspiracy can involve different levels of complicity,
            with knowledge of the complete plan
            limited to a few individuals.
            There are plausible scenarios of the attack as an inside job
            in which the number of such individuals
            is smaller than the number of individuals
            accused by the official conspiracy theory
            of “sleeper cells” directed by Osama bin Laden.

            High-ranking officials in the government
            have at their disposal several tools that Osama bin Laden would have lacked,
            such as detailed knowledge and control of the military’s
            disposition and response to the attack,
            and access to the military’s and intelligence agencies’
            hierarchical and compartmentalized command structure
            designed to execute complex operations
            with individuals working on a need-to-know basis.

            is an organizational tool
            long employed by intelligence agencies.

            The speculative scenario outlined in
            Attack Scenario 404
            explains how the attack might have been carried out
            by as few as twelve individuals.

            How could even a small number of people be persuaded to
            participate in such a horrific plan to kill “their own people”?

            There are many examples of mass homicide,
            economic gain often being a central motivating factor,
            and many of those involve conspiracies including high officials.
            There are several generally acknowledged examples of

            false-flag attacks
            being staged as pretexts for launching wars.
            According to the cold-blooded calculus of a false-flag attack
            one’s own countrymen are sacrificed to
            rally the people against an external enemy blamed for the attack.

            The economic interests riding on the success of the 9/11 attack
            (measurable in hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars),
            would have availed huge sums to the buying of people’s cooperation,
            and the procurement of state-of-the art covert operations capabilities.

            The small number of people with operational knowledge and control
            of the plan were likely willing participants
            whose stake in the plan’s success was sufficiently persuasive.
            The much larger number of people whose actions were necessary
            to execute the plan were likely, for the most part,
            entirely unwitting participants in the murderous plan.

          • Nat’l Petroleum Radio listener

            So, they have come forward, thats a fact you don’t want to address. 
            And even if you are hypothetically correct- that they hadn’t come forward- with the media culture at hand- where dissent is stiffled in favor of trivial nonsense- do you think you would really know about it? or would they hustle off disent just like the caller who had to obviously lie to screeners to get on? Well, we already know the answer to that one.. They don’t want to discuss it! Why not???
            Why can’t we have the freedom to discuss it as the founders intended!! WHY??
            Critical thinking skills, gain them..

          • The whole world has access to your terrible truther arguments online. There are better online sources for perpetual motion machines and free energy devices. No one is scared by your ideas. We’re bored and unconvinced by them.

            Face it. You belong with the Moon Landing skeptics.

          • Nat’l Petroleum Radio listener

            Ad hominem attacks- ALSO wouldn’t pass muster on the JV debate team. When is someone gonna pose some real, meaty argument for us to have a real debate about?
            Where is the Government Conspiracy Theorist who is actually willing to debate the science.
            Mostly you guys just get away with calling the other side conspiracy theorists- because that term is so loaded for you people..
            Do you not believe bad things happened on 9/11 and someone planned them? Linguistics matter-
            JV debate team BTW is only open to highschoolers

          • Again, what is it with conspiracy theorists and the overuse of the term “ad hominem”?

        • I’m sorry to say that you are the blind one.  The problem has been looked at technically and even though the failure was a surprise to the architect, the failure is consistent with the planes bringing down the buildings.  And if you are hung up on the red hot iron at the bottom of the buildings, I have done the calculations myself and that melting can be explained by the kinetic energy generated in the collapse.  I am critical of some things KQED does as well, but they have covered this subject extensively and accurately to their limitations.  They can’t discuss technical issues.  (I have a PhD in physics and have some experience in calculating energy expenditures.)

          • Victronix01

            Why don’t you link to your calculations or post them.  The over 1000 engineers and architects who are calling for a new investigation at AE911 would like to see them.  Or please consider submitting them to the Journal of 9/11 Studies.  If you haven’t, you are just posting comments about an apparently complicated computation you claim to have done.  If you want to refute the “conspiracy theories” you need to do so in a serious way, rather than just complaining on forums endlessly.

            What is your response to the paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
            Center Catastrophe

            Please post it.   Thousands of people around the world would like to see it.

          • Dear Victronix,
            I will post the calculation soon, but right now I don’t have time to
            find it. There is enough kinetic energy in the collapse to melt the
            iron and keep it hot for days on end. A couple of questions about the
            chips however.

            Number one is the credibility of Steve Jones who is famous for
            submarining Pons and Fleischmann and their article on Cold Fusion
            which Steve Jones was asked to review and delayed until they did
            something stupid worrying whether he was trying to scoop them. Steve
            had done a cold fusion experiment but his wouldn’t lead to a source of

            Second is the credibility of the source of the dust. Every sample of
            dust has thermite in it? Why only four samples? Samples at the
            Brooklyn Bridge? Are you trying to sell me something? No buildings
            around the Brooklyn Bridge knocked down by thermite in the past? An
            unusual thermite which can be easily traced? Why? Never mind the
            unbelievably complicated plot of switching out airplanes, planting the
            thermite and coordinating the thermite and the planes at different
            times. Any scientist worth his salt knows that garbage in gives
            garbage out. The real question is the sample. Remember the trial of
            O.J. Simpson? Sure the blood was his, but what about Detective
            Fuhrman’s possible planting of evidence which made the blood tests,
            accurate as they were, immaterial. The question isn’t the existence
            of thermite in the samples, but where the samples came from.
            Furthermore, Mr. Jones seems to have left the arena where refereed
            papers are required. Why? Also I distrust any group that says they
            are for the truth. That normally means that they aren’t for the
            truth, but have already made up their minds and want anything but the
            truth if it disagrees with their opinions.
            I will post the calculations, but MIT, which was closely involved in
            analyzing the collapse and where I did elementary particle research
            for a couple of years, has nothing to gain in suppressing evidence
            that thermite is omnipresent in every blob of dust from the World
            Trade Center. It would be a feather in their cap to expose another
            reason for the collapse. And the list of organizations in the paper
            doesn’t contain anyone or any group that I would trust.
            I’ll get back to you soon.
            Charles Jordan

          • MichaelB

            Sure you will Charles. Now where did I put that damn calculation? I’m just SO busy, yet I have so much time to write a bunch of hog-wash.

          • Victronix01

            >>the failure is consistent with the planes bringing down the buildings

            Building 7 was never hit by a plane.  See —

          • Rufus

            Anyone who watches 911 Mysteries knows it was an inside job.

          • Nat’l Petroleum Radio listener

            Sweet- so explain WTC 7 for us, since nothing hit it, and its geography places it outside the path of major falling debris.
            Explain its historical significance as the first building that ever fell due to fire. With facts, and hours after WTC1,2 fell- but not WTC 3,4,5,6 

        • radical peacenik


  • Asking questions you think the public wants to ask?  Do you feel responsible to ask questions according to the split of views in the audience?  Charles Jordan Moss Beach

  • 1PeterDuMont2STARALLIANCE8

    Brooke Gladstone is indeed a “Light to the Nation(s).”  Her enthusiastic, cheerful tone as respected public commentator and conscience “On the Media” combine a comprehensive social view, incisive intellectual and analytical abilities, and much courage.  Thank you, Brooke, for all you do for “We, the People!”

    • Media Echo Chamber

      She is the face of the new fascism.

      • You are the proponent of the new Moon Landing Skepticism.

        • Nat’l Petroleum Radio listener

          Oh please- you hear about one BS theory and paint all people with the same brush. Nuance is crucial to other scenarios as well, like not being a racist. Is it ok to use the same generalizing tactics as white supremacists? 
          I hate to be this dramatic but your thinking, plus state sponsored fear is how hitler manipulated germans into murdering millions.
          Nuance- shoot for it..

          • I don’t think you know what the word “nuance” means. Calling Brooke freakin’ Gladstone the face of the new fascism is MORE absurd than doubting the moon landing.

  • Victronix01

    She was unbelievably rude to the caller just now, describing the obvious destruction of WTC Building 7 as a “bogus fact”.  Wake up, KQED, you are going down the wrong path.  This “collapse” was shown to participants at San Francisco’s AIA Convention last year and building professionals were shocked.  See  It’s a no brainer.

    • radical peacnik

      Oh,please. There’s enough crap happening in the world that is real without focusing on trying to make on 9/11 into a conspiracy. Why not  put your energies into protecting the pro-democracies forces that are being shot,tortured and crushed by their own governments in the Middle East and N. Africa? Those horrible events are real and happening and something you can actually work to ameliorate.

      • Because they want to feel, not just special, but better than the “sheeple”. They want to believe they have special knowledge and understanding about the world, and that all of their problems arise because we don’t agree with them.
        To care about democracy in the middle east, or improving it at home, just isn’t special enough.

        • Victronix01

          Thanks for that revealing and intelligent comment.

      • Victronix01

        >>Why not  put your energies into

        Isn’t telling other people what they need to do with their lives the opposite of the very democracy you say I should work for?  It’s the classic flaw of activists to think that everyone has to work for *their* cause, that they can tell others what they “should” be doing.

        We need to respect everyone for who they are, what they are drawn to.  We can post about the Arab Spring and hope to entice people to get involved, but telling people to “put their energies” into it is just a demand.

        I have a degree in architecture and I know that a building in NYC was demolished on purpose, not by collapse, but by insiders, on September 11th.  This is the work I do because I choose to do it.

        It’s one thing to look at a video and a website and consider it.  It’s another to say “go do some other thing” because you don’t like what I’m doing.

        • My father is a licensed architect, and I know that that doesn’t qualify him to make the claim you just made. Popular. Mechanics. They exhaustively debunked the major claims of the conspiracy theorists, but you can make up B.S, faster than an intelligent person can disprove it. The same thing happens with Intelligent Design folk, or Global Warming deniers.

          In fact, they both have stronger cases than you, and yet they’re both crazy.

          • Nat’l Petroleum Radio listener

            Confusing really crazy, but media driven conspiracies such as birthers and moon landing deniers with factually based ones, specifically WTC 7– is exactly what the CALLER WHO SPARKED THIS wanted to avoid.
            Nuance- can you handle it aneece? CAN YOU? 
            please stop confounding ten different topics (like anybody thinks it makes your argument any stronger)

            Bringing up the media nonsense as you just have is a crucial way in which those who cannot handle the concept of NUANCE  respond to unofficial conspiracy theories such as architects for 9/11 truth.

            You circle the drain but don’t dare punch directly at your opponents argument!
            JV High school Debate team! lol- here you come

  • Media Echo Chamber

    The question all listeners should be asking is, why does Gladstone & Krasny and people like them make SUCH AN EFFORT to denounce anyone who’s skeptical of the media? And by attacking skeptics, whose interests are they actually serving?

    • Nat’l Petroleum Radio listener

      It is funny because listening to the rest of the interview- one would think Mrs. Gladstone is going to actually uphold all of the insightful analysis she gave BY ANSWERING TOUGH questions. Much of the reason for the first caller’s line of questioning was to ask for a “put up or shut up” moment it with respect to our national trajedy now almost ten years past. And when push comes to shove- they don’t want to answer tough questions. krasny said “this isn’t what you called in to talk about” 
      NO SH*T – would he ever actually allow a rational counter argument to be made? Doubtful 

      • Because… why? What is Dr Krasny’s motivation for being so, so evil?

      • Rufus

        Yes, that’s their scam: Pretending to be legit on any topic that doesn’t matter to their masters, but when their masters perpetrate a huge crime like 911 they eagerly deny the facts and blame scapegoats.

        • By what mechanism do their “masters” control them?

          • Rufus

            Have you watched 911 Mysteries yet?
            Short answer: Money and the promise of being an insider.

          • So they are promising tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people will become “insiders”. If they can accomplish that, why not just start a “Blow Up the WTC” political party? In your fevered imagination, that was apparently a really popular idea to a whole lot of Americans.

          • Nat’l Petroleum Radio listener

            Hold the phone! there ARE insiders who admitted people knew of the attacks. ON CSPAN- Norman Minetta- transportation secretary in DIRECT response to the 9/11 commission (not in the final reports)
            Please look, it may be hard to hear- especially after how much money Haliburton made through 2 wars. but you should look, you know, to maintain that entitled sense of superiority.

    • radical peacenik

      If one were to ask the question, it would be: “Why DO,” not,”Why DOES?” 

      My question to you. media echo chamber,is why are you so focused on conspiracy theories? They are so boring. This makes you boring.

       Move on and people might listen to you….

  • Hilly

    Great work Brooke, Thank you Michael.  Brooke I appreciate your optimism that things are getting better.   On the other hand I have recently encountered the case of a man three times beaten by white suprematists in the City of Hayward, here in the Bay Area.  The media, both national and local, have ignored the story– in spite of the crime’s significance as an act of hate.  The claim is that “we don’t have the resources” but I find that the blogosphere is equally disinterested.  Is the lack of interest in the story because it requires investigation on work, rather than east reporting on the city counsel.  Is it only news when it is murder– but assault and battery is not news any longer?  What ever happened to eternal vigilance?

    • Hilly

      author’s edit:
      …Is the lack of interest in the story because it requires investigation or work, rather than easy reporting…

    • radical peacenik

        Come,on,Hilly…Use some common sense. Unless this person is a minority hanging out neo-Nazis and/or white supremacists, what is the statistical likelihood that he would have been assaulted on three different occasions by white supremacists? Not very high at all.

        The only exception would be if this person were a target of white supremacists cops. Then you might have a much higher statistical likelihood of this having occurred.

  • By the way, you media types consistently slam the antiIPCC  (climate) research and researchers.  The word consensus associated with research is suspicious on the face of it.  There is a further problem that you don’t know as much as you think you do.  You are not educated to read scientific information accurately, especially its caveats.  Never mind your panic on radioactivity where you are lost in understanding that no one is dying from radioactivity, but many die from gasoline or dirty air.

    • You, my friend, have made a particular pact between reality and your ideology. But you can’t insist that we all become Climate Neville Chamberlains. Hard, physical reality isn’t impressed by right-wing “science”.

    • radical peacenik

      And yet the potential for many,many many people to become gravely ill and sickened and killed by radioactive material and/or to have our larger environment-the oceans,for example-irreparably contaminated by it are highly relevant topics to those of us who value life. (And yes, people are dying from radioactivity. Just ask those who suffer poor health and death as a result of nuclear blasts in the Pacific Islands, where French and US nuclear tests were conducted. But I guess those people don’t count to you.)

       And unlike  the ostrich with it’s head in the sand approach to the environment that you seem to be advocating, many of us think that we should be addressing environmental problems: gasoline,dirty air,dirty water and many more real environmental problems simultaneously.

      • Dear Radical Peacenik,
        I’m not against being radical or peace, but what’s that got to do with
        reality? People who have looked into every reactor accident have
        never found any discernible health effects including Hiroshima and
        Nagasaki (of course, excepting the actual pressure blast of the
        bomb.) I haven’t checked the data on the Pacific Islands, but we sent
        one and a half kilograms of plutonium into our own atmosphere in the
        above ground test program to no discernible effect as well despite an
        uneducated scream of defiance from many people like yourself. The
        facts don’t support your position and you have probably killed many
        people by forcing continued use of hydrocarbons by delaying a
        transition to nuclear. People do count to me. Apparently we are
        talking about different people. Who’s the ostrich?
        The environment is very complicated. We can’t solve its problems with
        emotional outbursts, only with solid science. It won’t be simple and
        it won’t be easy, so let’s not polarize.

  • Media Echo Chamber

    As the USA becomes more fascist, and as greater and greater crimes against democracy are perpetrated by insiders and blamed on scapegoats, take note of those in the media who belittle and dismiss anyone who questions official truths or puts 2 and 2 together. They are the servants of the new fascism.

    • Take note of mental health professionals in your area. They aren’t in on the conspiracy, (like Popular Mechanics and Noam Chompsky), and they’re here to help.

      • Rufus

        Wow, what a dirtbag you are!

        • I’m a crypto-facist, just like Popular Mechanics and Noam Chomsky.

          • Victronix01

            Aneece, you are criticizing people for calling others liars and fascists, but you think it’s fine to call people mentally ill?

            People will naturally be angry with ad hominems like that.

          • I’m not criticizing them for CALLING people liars and fascists, I’m criticizing them for reaching such faulty conclusions. I believe you deniers ARE, indeed, paranoid. I would have no problem with you calling and actual liar a liar.

            As an aside, what is it about online deniers (especially Global Warming deniers) overusing and misusing “ad hominem”? It’s a really popular device. You know that it’s only a fallacy in pure logic. If someone lied to you 100 times in a row, you would be wise to doubt the 101st thing they told you.

          • Nat’l Petroleum Radio listener

            Nuance- “i cannot handle it” i confound all issues, miraculously- in proportion to how much they are reported on the news. 

            Please, say it out loud and let it sink in..

          • I’ve looked through the cesspool of 9-11 truther blogs and videos, I’ve taken representative samples of the “arguments”. They are terrible. The whole world has access to the internet. People have been able to see your side of the argument. Maybe no one believes you (and more people believe Palin is intelligent) because your case sucks?

            Did you hear that This American Life about a woman whose husband was killed in the subway bombing, and she got in an ongoing tangle with skeptics and conspiracy theorists about it, who told her to her face that her husband never existed, and that she was in the employ of the government? Is that the kind of person you want to be?

          • Nat’l Petroleum Radio listener

            yes- i listened to that TAL show, and you know what- they never once discussed any of the EVIDENCE. it was all- “these people are so nutty” 

            The arguements you use are literally “because i said so” arguements! doesn’t it make you feel bad?
            for believing security companies have an interest in scaring people into buying their products. Have we no knowledge of good marketing for your products? Please, i know i pose tough questions, but in your response- i wanna see you actually addressing the critique put in front of you. NOT more mainstream propoganda! 
            No more- “i watched an episode of this and they said they were bad- so i believe them.. JUVENILE

          • So you believe that poor woman is a paid actor, enacting an entire life, pretending she had a husband, pretending to have a shattered life due to the bombing? You don’t seem to understand where the burden of proof lies. If I close my eyes and open them again, I have no incontrovertible proof that the person across from continued to exist. There’s no such thing as a perfect, unbroken chain of evidence. We have data points, isolated and discontinuous. The burden in the London bombing case was not on this woman who has manifestly lost her husband, it’s on those people who doubt her.

            And, since you’re playing footsie with their position, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Ira Glass or his associates KNOWINGLY fabricated this woman’s story.

          • Nat’l Petroleum Radio listener

            I’m not an expert on the london bombing, i don’t pretend to be. No, you are right, i don’t believe she is an actor, but if she was an intelligence officer YOU WOULDN”T KNOW, now would you? you grasp at any possible argument- not good.
            Knowing what happened on 9/11 in NYC- 3 buildings and 2 planes (you do the math) Made me listen much more closely to the that TAL show. And my only criticism is that they did not address any factual evidence, and only made an emotional argument. Thats fine, It just wouldn’t pass my public school JV debate team.Yet you rest your hat on it. Fine, sounds like something a “truther” would do, if you also listened to all the other mainstream noise about them.. Hmmmm, hypocrisy -BAD..
            Real patriotism- real arguments-GOOD.

          • Nat’l Petroleum Radio listener

            Aneece, you are right, global warming deniers seem nutty to me too. This doesn’t make your apples to oranges argument make anymore sense. Please try again.

  • Valerielmailbox-contact

    Some information that Mr Gladstone has studied may be questionable and other information that he may not have investigated might be worth his admission of ignorance and being humble about. He would not have to go very far to see the many videos of the collapse of WTC7. and he might find the NIST report revision on their findings most interesting as they admitted it fell in free fall speed. Insulting a caller and relegating them to the category of fool was nasty and uncalled for.

    • Paul

      Insulting callers and blocking callers is just the beginning of how this is developing. It will get much worse before it gets better. There is no one in the mainstream who is independent and uncorrupted enough, and certainly not courageous enough, to stand up to power and support political dissidents like 9/11 truthers.

      9/11 truthers are to NPR what Palestinians are to rightwing Zionists. Each latter group knows it is wrong and yet has no qualms about proceeding anyway.

  • mswyers

    If you can’t answer a skeptic’s information and questions with a valid response and a reasoned argument your denouncements are just a form of ad hominem attack.

    • Paul

      One good website I’ve found that talks about 9/11 is It takes a pretty rational approach, identifies key witnesses and explains physical laws, and gives many links to the numerous documentaries about 9/11.
      I would add that of all people, Northern Californians should be able to understand that a mind is like a parachute: It only functions when open. Problem is, 9/11 caused so many minds to close shut. So many people bought the scam about Muslims doing it, hook line and sinker!

  • Karen

    Michael and Brooke,  You would like “Badger” an artwork of the SEVEN DEADLY SINS as sash with scout badges by Buck Silva.

  • Nat’l Petroleum Radio listener

    Keep em busy with all the bad news and people who ‘care’ (radical peacnik, Aneece)  will argue against them for us!

    Yes, we want to feel special- specially connected to saving our democracy from those who cannot handle nuance. From those who make illogical arguements that don’t address the FACTS. From those who attack their fellow americans rather than the ISSUE AT HAND.This has happened before- Have WE all FORGOTTEN Vietnam???

  • Nat’l Petroleum Radio listener

    Ask yourself why this debate never will actually make it on the air.
    No one wants to look at new facts, they want to have their opinions.
    My opinion is that this debate is withheld from major US media and thus from discussion in our democracy because we cannot allow for a full fledged debate (to break people away from the official conspiracy)

    I just want you to know- Al Jazeera is perfectly ok with having former NAVY SEALS on their shows to argue for a new investigation of 9/11

    WHY? because you civilians seem unable to resist throwing mud on anybody who is radical for PEACE unless they have made WAR. But bombing brown people, destroying their familes after we have dehumanized them through our media- YOU ARE PERFECTLY OK WITH THEM.
    you even stick up for them.

    • Nat’l Petroleum Radio listener

      they can be flat out wrong, they can lie us into war, they can draft dodge their military career to never have to know what war REALLY IS.  Murder, Rape, destruction, environmental devastation -ever consider what spraying lead bullets all over the natural environment does to soils? 
      lead in soil- everywhere- every time- ever hear that on the news?
      No, you don’t, you hear what they want you to.And you still defend the notion that they didn’t cause all of this. Just some of it, i have news for you. GOOGLE PNAC and New Pearl Harbor- see what Cheney and Rumsfeld Wrote before 9/11

  • Nat’l Petroleum Radio listener

    Not one of you who believes the  Official Conspiracy theory (yes you are a conspiracy theorist too) about 9/11 will dare answer my arguments. 
    This speaks Volumes..

  • Repost because I replied to the wrong post:

    To all the Truthers,

    I’ve looked through the cesspool of 9-11 truther blogs and videos, I’ve
    taken representative samples of the “arguments”. They are terrible. The
    whole world has access to the internet. People have been able to see
    your side of the argument. Maybe no one believes you (and more people
    believe Palin is intelligent) because your case sucks?

    Did you
    hear that This American Life about a woman whose husband was killed in
    the subway bombing, and she got in an ongoing tangle with skeptics and
    conspiracy theorists about it, who told her to her face that her husband
    never existed, and that she was in the employ of the government? Is
    that the kind of person you want to be?

    • Nat’l Petroleum Radio listener

      yes- i listened to that TAL show, and you know what- they never once discussed any of the EVIDENCE. it was all- “these people are so nutty” 

      The arguements you use are literally “because i said so” arguements! doesn’t it make you feel bad?That instead of responding to the reasonable arguments and please to look into it- You are consumed by some nutter whom TAL paraded around as though thats the only argument. Sure anyone can spout vile easily debunk-able stuff like “your husband didn’t exist” do you ever think about the EDITORS who allow for that to characterize the ‘other side’ of the debate? EVER?
      Ever ask WHY that piece didn’t hit the cutting room floor as being “not a credible argument made by angry people?”

      BECAUSE ITS EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO SWALLOW, uncritically.. which is exactly what has happened, not everyone is of the Blind faith that you exhibit- ANEECE. Please, i know i pose tough questions, but in your response- i wanna see you actually addressing the critique put in front of you. NOT more mainstream propoganda! No more- “i watched an episode of this and they said they were crazy” so i believe them.. JUVENILE 

      • I’ve read every word of your horrid posts, and I’d expect you to read through mine. I’ve looked through the vast, ugly morass of 9-11 Trutherdom, and passed judgement.

        What you wrongly accuse me of could be applied to you. There are people online you are convinced that Big Oil is suppressing their free energy devices. If this were true, it would have massive consequences for mankind, far greater than 9-11, and yet you’ve dismissed their arguments simply because every reputable scientific establishment dismisses them. THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO THINK.

        Honestly, what’s the difference?

  • Mr Petroleum, if that’s your real name,

    Burden of proof. The nation of Greece could be an elaborate plot,
    designed specifically to mislead ME. All the Greek history, literature,
    language, and restaurants might be fabricated by the Man to convince me
    there really is such a place, for some nefarious purpose. There is
    literally no way you could definitively prove to me I’m wrong. I could
    always come up with some explanation for the evidence you bring me, or
    raise an issue about Greece you haven’t answered yet. But the burden of proof would be on ME, to demonstrate why it was less improbable that Greece was a hoax than that I was paranoid.

    TAL reporters found a woman, with a history, with associates and friends
    and family and all the accoutrements of an actual person whose story
    checked out. YOU need to demonstrate that she, or TAL are lying.

    Burden. Of. Proof.

    • And as for your “this wouldn’t pass muster in a JV debate squad”, it wasn’t a debate. One side had a plausible, verifiable position, the other had panting, sweating paranoia. It would be false balance to give them equal time.

      Any American with a modem can access your ilk’s best arguments, as I have done. I’ve rejected them, as have millions of others. You just need to accept that either your case isn’t as good as you think it is, or that no one cares about the willful murder of our countrymen. Either way, you’ve well and truly lost.

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor