The dairy farmer vs the best in the Australian media? Sadly there’s no match.
On the 3rd of November, I published Derryn Hinch Supports the Washington Syria Script. This led to correspondence between Christopher Brooks (one of Gumshoe’s contributors and commentors) and Derryn Hinch . Christopher posted the correspondence in the comments, but I have re-posted extracts below.
What is crystal clear, is that Christopher, a dairy farmer, is more astute, judicious, perceptive, and more rational, enlightened and informed than the best of Australia’s media personalities (…all put together).
Why is it that investigative journalists and media professionals seem unable to take firm steps towards rational thought and analysis of the facts? Many of these people have been “investigating” and reporting for more than three decades, yet they are trapped into parroting a prescribed script.
They might be good at the small stuff, but when it comes to the big events they seem to suffer amnesia, irrational thought, and a desire to denigrate their opponent.
Mr Hinch, you can be rest assured, you are not the only focus of Gumshoe News. We have focused on ABC radio personality Jon Faine in The Debate Around 19 Arabs And “Whether Or Not The Earth Is Flat”; Laurie Oaks in Just Another Australian Presstitute; The ABC in 911 Elephants in the Room; Dr Karl; Patrick Carlyon in Disgraceful Reporting and others.
We keep asking: why are intelligent, educated (and often highly paid) media personalities unable to tackle the realities of events such as 9/11?
You only have to listen to BBC’s Mike Rubin interviewing Niels Harrit to realise that Rubin’s mind has been “locked” into a belief, and it seems no good argument can change his mind. Jon Faine, too, believes the debate over 9/11 is like debating “whether the earth is flat.” Mr Faine, a former laywer, seems emotionally unable to even have a debate over issues such as 9/11.
Four Corners website
In May 2011 I wrote to Kerry O’Brien at Four Corners urging them to “tackle” Building 7. I received a polite reply from the Program Assistant stating that they had run BBC’s The Third Tower in 2008, and concluded the email with “Unfortunately, however, the episode may not support your premise.” “Investigative journalism at its very best” at Four Corners had declared the case closed. I dare say our esteemed Kerry O’Brien, now retiring, also suffers from the same amnesic “condition.”
It was when I met Professor Jonathan Barnett (November 2014) that I realised something happens to certain people’s thought processes. Over a cup of coffee we discussed the collapse of Building 7, as he was one of the investigating specialists for FEMA. Barnett and I went around in circles. He had no explanation as to why there was a variation between their modelling and reality, and also made an astonishing statement. He said with apparently great sincerity, that even though the building behaved like a demolition, “there was no need to investigate for explosives.”
But, it’s when these media personalities attempt to denigrate Christopher Brooks that they will come up out-matched. Christopher’s diligent approach to the facts cannot be matched.
Brooks Episode One
Following is the essence of the correspondence between Brooks and Hinch (for the record):
2015/11/03 at 6:55 pm Christopher posted a comment “Incredible outburst from Hinch!” with many useful links.
2015/11/04 at 4:44 am
This letter and your response will be public.
I read your tirade against Assad in The Age with some disappointing feelings of déjà vu .
Derryn are you aware Turkish politicians claimed in a press release last week that chemicals and rockets used to frame Assad originated in Turkey?
Derryn, are you aware the UN investigations not only confirmed chemicals were employed in Syria but evidenced that the “opposition” had chemicals and did employ them against Syrians?
Derryn, are you aware the majority of Syrians who have fled the conflict encroaching on their homes moved into the territory controlled by the Syrian government, not into Europe as you claim?
What does this mean about their fear of, and judgment of the Assad-led Syrian Government?
Is there any historical pattern of atrocity tales and poisonous propaganda preceding and facilitating the manufacturing of public consent when war ambitions are on the agenda?
Have you read or heard about the incredible revelations from the recently German published “Bought Journalism”? Most of the refugees flooding into Europe are not Syrian despite the impression in the media. Agree or disagree?
What role did US intelligence and their proxy associating communities play in bringing the Syrian conflict into life?
Can you provide me with the particular documents and reference that has informed your view? Can you present some statistical data and sources to support the claims in your article that Assad has “gassed and bombed hundreds of thousands of his own people”?
There are many claims in your article that I believe are false but I relish the opportunity to put the issues squarely on the table out in the open for public judgment. When would you be available to conduct an interview where we can interrogate all the documents, history, political architecture and patterns of Geo-political power struggles that might need to be calculated to achieve an honestly calibrated understanding of Assad, Syria and the Middle East realities?
I have more than thirty highly referenced and qualified investigation reports, articles, interviews and documentaries that I would relate my research and base my interrogation. I would happily provide this material to yourself previous to any interview as my only interest is to achieve genuine justice for all based upon totally open accountable scrutiny of all relevant information.
I do not hold the Syrian Government or Assad as ideal or faultless, I do believe in honesty and objective relative context when it comes to apportioning blame and formulating the best policy solutions.
This approach requires serious effort and a constituted methodology of working things out.
Considering the tense and grave state of world security I will expect that you will embrace your responsibility to be fully accountable on the public record for your allegations.
Justice applies to us all, Assad is not excluded, nor the millions of Syrian people who wish to defend their
right to elect their politicians and defend their Nation against an invasion force that has been poured
onto their land like acid.
Derryn, I look forward to your response.
2015/11/04 at 6:30 pm
Derryn Hinch has replied to my mail but is not answering my questions. Considering how Derryn makes such aggressive selective challenges towards accountability it does appear Assad and the Syrian Government are not deserving of evidence-based justice. Derryn should furnish some evidence or publish a retraction. When did he become exempt from being accountable?
Christopher. Since the publication of my article on Syria and Cambodia in the Fairfax newspapers I have variously been accused of being a CIA spy, a Washington puppet, a journalistic neophyte and some other things that Facebook would censor. The one thing we seem to all agree on is that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein’s arsenal. I note my critics have had ample airing on social media and don’t plan to add to it by joining the debate. Derryn Hinch. Melbourne. 4.11.15
2015/11/05 at 5:38 am
A further follow up response to Mr Hinch at…..email@example.com
A time efficient action to join my challenges to Mr Hinch is to simply cut and paste my letters with appropriate cover comments and supporting request that Derryn answer my questions and accountability challenge which is obvious, reasonable and important. The same applies to Fairfax Media.
All my correspondence with you is public.
Thank you for replying to my mail but considering your career has been based on holding people to account, where justice was being avoided, it is ironic that you are now avoiding genuine accountability despite the false war-mongering atrocity propaganda you have spread with your Fairfax article.
The Syrian conflict is a life and death subject that demands we all respect the gravity and responsibility we must contemplate when we speak and act as individual Australians, we should attempt to give effect to our will and formulate the best contributing policies and solutions.
I was surprised to read you were signing on to the simplistic and shallow “Assad is a Devil” narrative, considering the objective pattern of war rallying lies and deception has been well documented in all it’s elements over recent years.
Derryn, you ignored all the intelligent questions and qualifications that should have been applied to your subject matter and sources leaving yourself exposed as a propagandist, not a seeker of justice or a critical thinker relying on a fully dynamic understanding of murky complex political realities that are contaminated and corrupted by multiple identifiable forces and mischievous strategies.
In one article Derryn, you have destroyed your journalistic integrity, and announced you have all the qualities that fit you to join the “political class”, who abandon their accountability and scruples in surrendering their loyalty to monopoly power agenda.
I urge you to reconsider your position and address the questions and challenge I make to you in requesting you face fair interrogation of your claims through on-the-record discussion that incorporates the tabling of all relevant evidence that has informed your opinion, along with contrary evidence
that points towards alternative interpretations of what is really happening.
I look forward to your response.
…Mr Hinch responded with a foul punch that reveals his not so honorable intent!
On 5/11/2015 7:49 AM, Derryn Hinch wrote: I’ve been following the depth of some of the debate. Having been at Port Arthur I was intrigued to see that some of the most ardent Assad defenders think Martin Bryant didn’t do it. DH
All my correspondence to yourself is public.
Derryn, it is hardly an original distracting ruse to avoid uncomfortable questions by waving about “poisonous” associating language and topics that have the intention of denigrating and isolating threatening subject matter or debating opponents.
I believe the colloquial terminology is “muddying the water”. Is this really your standard Derryn?
You reveal the lack of confidence you have in your article claims, when instead of soberly interrogating evidence relating to facts, documents, sources and a full understanding of our political realities, you choose to manufacture a glib sandbox level distraction.
One of the very significant elements all participants in political debate must understand, is this type of “trick card” device you are demonstrating.
Nothing of any intellectual substance is tabled but instead you rely, for your illegitimate defence, on the threatening conditioned fear effect of particular “special” words and subjects. These have almost magical power in their force over the common mindset, far beyond their basic rational meaning, far beyond the objective critical balanced thinking value of the subject matter, where ideas stand on merit not religious emotive drenched dictates.
In itself, this subject of employing devious political ability, instead of mature honest intellectual ability, plays itself out every day in many fascinating dimensions and is essential knowledge for all critical thinkers.
The mild forms are political correctness that caution our thoughts and words, political “swear words” are aimed at dissident thinkers to warn they risk public approbation if apologies are not immediately offered on a platter, with apologies for transgressing the “official” doctrines, and the most stubborn independent thinkers know how serious the game is when “right wing extremist” or that meaningless, but often effective hoary canard, “anti-Semite”, is directed like a branding iron at opponents. It happens when those with the means choose to inflict controlling discipline upon someone they do not wish to openly debate or allow to express their free opinions.
An excellent confession on this “trick” is provided by Shulamit Aloni, former Israeli Minister speaking in interview with Democracy Now.
If it wasn’t so serious in its effect we could just enjoy the bluffing comedy performance of the court jesters who, often under instruction from not so public characters, are forced to deliver and prosecute a “burning at the stake”. The chanting mob usually join the crucifixion.
This type of avoiding technique is, in its milder forms, commonly rolled out almost reflexively, by political players and even by many experienced journalists and academics, when difficult questions are raised that challenge establishment narratives and scripts.
Sorcery only works on people and in places where power and fear rules, and reason and logic have been suspended. Some people even hold the attitude that by calling an idea a “conspiracy theory” they become superior and automatically assume their opinion is correct.
Derryn, I know you wouldn’t fall for that type of ignorant nonsense!
THE ISSUES MY QUESTIONS ADDRESSED
Derryn, you broadcast opinions and claims that you seem reluctant or unable to evidence with credible supporting source documents that allow readers to establish the integrity of your journalism and defend, if necessary, our political discourse from becoming contaminated with potentially dangerous error in our the common understanding of Syrian realities which Australians rely upon to judge their political action.
I note you do concede there are some historical WMD deceptions to inform us of the climate and patterns of our political realities. Are you calculating these realities?
Requesting reference and sources is a basic and obvious challenge yet it seems you wish to escape accountability by your distracting attempts to smear those who are questioning your statements – by coating the issue with the very tragic and politically controversial Port Arthur incident.
THE TRICKY DISTRACTING “MARTIN BRYANT” DEVICE OUT IN THE OPEN …. WHO IS AFRAID?
Derryn, I do not shrink in the slightest in my belief that Martin Bryant is innocent, just because you might hold the populist view and think that their is some type of intimidating authority in stating your view. Many people are convicted of crimes and are later declared innocent. Some people are executed for crimes that are later declared to be committed by other parties. Most of these people even get a proper trial.
My opinion is based on studying the evidence, and I myself have publicly expressed that view because I believe it involves a very grave injustice imposed upon Martin, his Mother, and the Australian people. Any reader can explore my stated opinion, reasoning and evidence I cite on the subject.
If you wish to interrogate myself and the evidence that has informed my view I am available and would insist our discussion proceed with microphones and camera recording, so we discover how the various documents, facts and explanations stand up to rigorous scrutiny and cross examination. I believe the same sound standards of research and accountability should apply to Assad, Syria and the broader Middle East issues and political power architecture.
Is there any other method of investigation that can be relied upon to uncover all the truth that is possible?
What I find generally, is many people with strong opinions on controversial subjects, melt in their resolve when genuine, open, honest and publicly accountable, on the record, is on the agenda. What I often find is politicians and journalists mostly shun any space where serious thinkers with sound methodology of research wish to objectively apply the necessary serious concentration and constituted process to interrogate subjects to legal standards.
Derryn, rolling out the “Port Arthur” number might even get you some applause in spaces where the easily manipulated gather to cheer their favorite thought idolatry and champion the priests and prayers that comfortably confirm their false religious beliefs.
I am always available to interrogate the justice issues relevant to the tragic Port Arthur crime, on the public record, and I never fail to answer any written challenge to any of my stated claims or opinion.
Any person who thinks their opinion of “Port Arthur” validates mocking others who hold different views would no doubt be confident and fearless to defend that opinion on the public record. Good critical thinkers understand that when exaggerated political and social influence create a taboo atmosphere around any idea that stifles free expression special interests are protecting lies that assist exercising their power of the majority.
DERRYN…….WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING?
I do understand the incredible power, and the techniques involved, that cleverly have some words and topics packaged and wrapped with the deliberate intention of generating a perceived foul social and political stench upon targeted ideas and people.
In some respects this influence has gained a systemic relation to our society and all it’s contemplations through media, education and social engineering.
Sensitivities and beliefs have become ingrained in the common mindset that fuel the mood and response of the mob in its community reaction, that for many is totally unconscious, but never the less, very effective at maintaining the majority at a safe distance away from threatening information or ideas that might challenge the prescribed orthodox interpretations of what is, or is not possible.
Undoubtedly Derryn, these tricks have been aimed at yourself on occasions when your journalism investigations strayed beyond the tolerated limits that must be managed by the very powerful corporate and financial special interest groups.
Perception of some level of justice, a Melbourne Cup every November, annual Grand Finals for every code, and shopping sales that reflect religious experience, keep the peace. Don’t mention the War! At least not on the weekends or after hours!
My questions and invitation to publicly interrogate your Nov 2 article on Syria and Assad remain unanswered.
Why would you not be able to evidence and source your claims?
What are readers to conclude from your reluctance to provide obvious standards of accountability and your distracting mischief to smear your critics instead of furnishing honest genuine answers with sources and reference?