Counterpunch Editor: 50% of Our Readership Are 9-11 Deniers

[Brainster]

I was listening to an interview with Jeffrey St. Clair (http://counterpunch.org/ruspoli01242007.html), the co-editor of Counterpunch, a (far) Left magazine. The first question asked of him was what was the fallout from their (http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html) (excellent) articles (http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11282006.html) debunking 9-11 conspiracy theories (http://www.counterpunch.org/jw11282006.html). He made a comment about how the magazine took a hit, but survived it and I have to admit that I rolled my eyes at first--oh, yeah, you got a bunch of angry letters to the editor written in crayon. But a couple of minutes into the interview he drops the bombshell:

"Fifty percent, I would say, at least, of our readers believe to one degree or another, that the Bush Administration was responsible responsible for--orchestrated or was in some other way complicit in the 9-11 attacks."

Now remember, St. Clair would have no reason to exaggerate this percentage. He's saying that half of his readership is comprised of a bunch of kooks. Kudos for him and his mag standing up to the Deniers and doing the right thing, painful as it must have been to their circulation!

[HeyLeroy]

Something's gotta be said for integrity.

[pagan]

I was listening to an interview with Jeffrey St. Clair (http://counterpunch.org/ruspoli01242007.html), the co-editor of Counterpunch, a (far) Left magazine. The first question asked of him was what was the fallout from their (http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html) (excellent) articles (http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11282006.html) debunking 9-11 conspiracy theories (http://www.counterpunch.org/jw11282006.html). He made a comment about how the magazine took a hit, but survived it and I have to admit that I rolled my eyes at first--oh, yeah, you got a bunch of angry letters to the editor written in crayon. But a couple of minutes into the interview he drops the bombshell:

"Fifty percent, I would say, at least, of our readers believe to one degree or another, that the Bush Administration was responsible responsible for--orchestrated or was in some other way complicit in the 9-11 attacks."

Now remember, St. Clair would have no reason to exaggerate this percentage. He's saying that half of his readership is comprised of a bunch of kooks. Kudos for him and his mag standing up to the Deniers and doing the right thing, painful as it must have been to their circulation!


Jeffrey St Clair admits 50% of readership believes that the Bush adm was responsible for 9-11 attacks. That's great news.

I wonder if this is going to change their attitude? It is not very nice to dismiss 50% of your readership as kooks.

So far, they have acted as what we truthers call left-gate keepers. They even had a few nasty hit pieces, one written by cockburn if memory seves me.

[LashL]

Jeffrey St Clair admits 50% of readership believes that the Bush adm was responsible for 9-11 attacks. That's great news.

I wonder if this is going to change their attitude? It is not very nice to dismiss 50% of your readership as kooks.

So far, they have acted as what we truthers call left-gate keepers. They even had a few nasty hit pieces, one written by cockburn if memory seves me.

Mr. St. Clair acknowledges that 50% of his publication's readership are delusional, yes. That obviously has not "changed their attitude" - to the contrary, they have shown great integrity in telling you how wrong you are about, well, everything.

There is nothing wrong with identifying 50% of one's readership as kooks when 50% of one's readers are, in fact, kooks. It's good of them to acknowledge that, in fact. I doubt that you will ever see such honesty coming from the usual twoofer sources such as prisonplanet, american free press, rense, rumormillnews, etal.

As an aside, I cannot help but laugh every time some tinhatter refers to himself as a "truther" and his cult as "truthers" because, frankly, the people you call "truthers" fail and refuse to recognize the actual truth - without quotation marks - even when it slaps them upside the head, pummels them about the face, knocks them out cold, and leaves them for dead, metaphorically speaking, of course.

[beachnut]

Jeffrey St Clair admits 50% of readership believes that the Bush adm was responsible for 9-11 attacks. That's great news.

I wonder if this is going to change their attitude? It is not very nice to dismiss 50% of your readership as kooks.

So far, they have acted as what we truthers call left-gate keepers. They even had a few nasty hit pieces, one written by cockburn if memory seves me.

Half of the readers are like Kyle said, "retarded".

Not sure why it is great news. It means there are a lot of idiots who believe stuff without any supporting facts or evidence. Kind of stupid.

As longs as the truthers act like nut cases and just talk we will be fine. What is wrong with dumb people? Dylan Avery is making a living off of real dumb people. There is always room for idiots in a market driven society. Dylan is banking on it! What would be funny is LCFC tells the truth. How idiots fell for total fiction.

Ironic name for a group/cult telling lies, the 9/11 truth movement. Sometimes you just have to tell the CTers they are nuts.

[lionking]

A guesstimate that 50% of readers of a far left magazine are conspiracy fantacists? Wow that does it for me!
Perhaps it may be worth considering that the left have been wrong on almost every important issue for the past 70 or so years. I can list them if anyone wants.....

[a_unique_person]

Would the first left mistake be that they were against the invasion of Iraq?

[lionking]

Would the first left mistake be that they were against the invasion of Iraq?
Everyone's against the war in Iraq now, but I clearly recall a number of left luminaries applauding the toppling of the right wing Saddam at the time. And I did say "almost".....

[a_unique_person]

St Clair already knows he is a 'gate keeper'. Most of what he says in that interview seems to be pretty correct.

[Brainache]

A guesstimate that 50% of readers of a far left magazine are conspiracy fantacists? Wow that does it for me!
Perhaps it may be worth considering that the left have been wrong on almost every important issue for the past 70 or so years. I can list them if anyone wants.....

Like fighting fascism in Europe? Yeah big mistake.
Civil rights for black Americans? What were they thinking?
Oposing the Vietnam war? Those lefties never learn.
Ousting Nixon?
Exposing Iran Contras?

....

Sorry I seem to have gone all political again.

[lionking]

Like fighting fascism in Europe? Yeah big mistake.
Civil rights for black Americans? What were they thinking?
Oposing the Vietnam war? Those lefties never learn.
Ousting Nixon?
Exposing Iran Contras?

....

Sorry I seem to have gone all political again.
Happy to go to another thread here, but the left (aka communists and socialiats) fighting fascism in Europe????

[Brainache]

Happy to go to another thread here, but the left (aka communists and socialiats) fighting fascism in Europe????

Umm yep. Ever hear about that wacky German bloke? Adolf something? I think there were a few lefties fighting him.
Or that Spanish Bloke? Frank someone or other? The lefties weren't as successful against him. Just because they lost doesn't mean they were wrong.

Actually this little side track properly belongs in the politics sub-forum.

Go on I'd love to see a thread over there titled: "The left have been wrong about almost everything for the last 70 years".

[PerryLogan]

The editor of Counterpunch is simply wrong. There are not enough Truthers to make up half of anything, much less a left-wing anything.

I like leftist stuff--environmental legislation, civil rights legislation, the Freedom of Information Act, work safety laws, seatbelts, etc. The right opposes them, yet they seem to have worked quite well. I also dislike the way money hemorrhages out of the country when Republicans are in control. But hey--politics is crazy, right?

The point being, I hang around with leftists. I read leftist writings. I see virtually no leftists who believe the Truth Movement stuff. I assure all of you, the whole story is simply too stupid for leftists to believe.

[Brainache]

<snip>
The point being, I hang around with leftists. I read leftist writings. I see virtually no leftists who believe the Truth Movement stuff. I assure all of you, the whole story is simply too stupid for leftists to believe.

Now now Perry, I'm sure there are a few stupid lefties out there. I know a few who believe in astrology and psychics. I don't believe the right wing has a monopoly on morons.

[Andúril]

The editor of Counterpunch is simply wrong. There are not enough Truthers to make up half of anything, much less a left-wing anything.

I like leftist stuff--environmental legislation, civil rights legislation, the Freedom of Information Act, work safety laws, seatbelts, etc. The right opposes them, yet they seem to have worked quite well.
I don't think that the rigt wing opposes those things. It's just that the leftists want to gain a monopoly on them. This pattern becomes very clearly visible now when the parliament elections are taking place here; leftists are screaming with red faces that the right would destroy the "welfare state", and if anyone else than a leftist speaks of, for example, taking care of the poor, they condemn it as populism. They want to make people believe that only the left can keep a welfare state up and running. Too bad that not a single leftist understands that upkeeping this kind of system requires money, and none of them has any idea of how to make it.

I see virtually no leftists who believe the Truth Movement stuff. I assure all of you, the whole story is simply too stupid for leftists to believe.
It seems to me that most Truthers are some sort of half-stalinist, half-nazi hybrids. A book example of schizophrenia.

[IllegalArgument]

It seems to me that most Truthers are some sort of half-stalinist, half-nazi hybrids. A book example of schizophrenia.

Godwin!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[Foolmewunz]

Happy to go to another thread here, but the left (aka communists and socialiats) fighting fascism in Europe????

Brainache got there first, but this is really astonishingy ill-informed. The left was almost the only group fighting the original fascists (Spain and Itay), comprised most of the French resistance, and if IIRC, the Russian government was nominallly communist and had a bit to do with the downfall of Germany and Hitler.

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's interesting that even when a political publication makes a stand on skeptical grounds that alienates a large chunk of its readership, something everyone here should applaud, there is still no shortage of people who show up just to air their inane political stereotypes.

Counterpunch displayed almost unheard-of integrity in my opinion. That doesn't make them right about anything else, but they've displayed far more moral fibre than most so-called mainstream media outlets or journals of record would display in their shoes.

[IllegalArgument]

Brainache got there first, but this is really astonishingy ill-informed. The left was almost the only group fighting the original fascists (Spain and Itay), comprised most of the French resistance, and if IIRC, the Russian government was nominallly communist and had a bit to do with the downfall of Germany and Hitler.

I would recommend Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia". The Soviet influenced communist party in Spain did a lot of damage to it's own side.

http://www.george-orwell.org/Homage_to_Catalonia/index.html

As Kevin stated, Counterpunch, which I read very rarely, should be complemented on their stand.

[Foolmewunz]

I would recommend Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia". The Soviet influenced communist party in Spain did a lot of damage to it's own side.

http://www.george-orwell.org/Homage_to_Catalonia/index.html

As Kevin stated, Counterpunch, which I read very rarely, should be complemented on their stand.

Oh, I concur on Counterpunch,... absolutely. I'd like to hope that if I published or edited a magazine and discovered that 50% of my readers were delusional, I'd have the courage to try to educate them.

[WildCat]

Brainache got there first, but this is really astonishingy ill-informed. The left was almost the only group fighting the original fascists (Spain and Itay), comprised most of the French resistance, and if IIRC, the Russian government was nominallly communist and had a bit to do with the downfall of Germany and Hitler.
But the Soviet Union and Germany were allies at the start of the war, and jointly invaded Poland to start it off. Hitler, of course, double crossed Stalin a year and a half later.

[Brainache]

But the Soviet Union and Germany were allies at the start of the war, and jointly invaded Poland to start it off. Hitler, of course, double crossed Stalin a year and a half later.

Personally I have a problem with calling Stalin left wing. He may have been leader of the Soviet Union, but I don't believe he was left wing. He was a totalitarian dictator.

[WildCat]

Personally I have a problem with calling Stalin left wing. He may have been leader of the Soviet Union, but I don't believe he was left wing. He was a totalitarian dictator.
Left-wingers can't be totalitarian dictators?

[Brainache]

Left-wingers can't be totalitarian dictators?

In the same sense that square can't be a circle. A totalitarian dictatorship is not left wing.(At least not in the way I understand the term)
We may be quibbling over definitions here, but don't forget that the Nazi party was the National SOCIALIST Party. Does that make Hitler left wing?

[Donal]

Left and right? shouldn't we be a little above 2 dimensional thinking?

and besides, thats not the point of this thread. I have to honestly say I'd only rarely even heard of Counterpunch, and simply knew it was a "far left" editorial collection. However, this does show integrity on their part and should be commended.

[Foolmewunz]

In the same sense that square can't be a circle. A totalitarian dictatorship is not left wing.(At least not in the way I understand the term)
We may be quibbling over definitions here, but don't forget that the Nazi party was the National SOCIALIST Party. Does that make Hitler left wing?

Well, it depends on who you talk to. My old "fellow travelers" would consider Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot to be extreme leftwing radical/revolutionary Marxists (as opposed to communists). So I'd stand by Stalin's Russia as being on the left. (But agree that "Socialist" for the Nazis was a total misnomer.)

[carlvs]

Godwin!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

:confused:

Considering that these people already have been linked to Holocaust (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72912) Deniers (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72912), and Neo (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70285)-Nazis (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70862), I believe Godwin should not apply here...

[Brainache]

Well, it depends on who you talk to. My old "fellow travelers" would consider Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot to be extreme leftwing radical/revolutionary Marxists (as opposed to communists). So I'd stand by Stalin's Russia as being on the left. (But agree that "Socialist" for the Nazis was a total misnomer.)

Well yeah I suppose I use left wing to mean something like tree hugging hippy, which is not how I imagine Joe Stalin.

I think that when you get to either extreme, left and right become pretty similar.