If you call up the most recent news pieces about Sean Hoare, the dead whistleblower in the Murdoch phone hacking scandal, you'll be constantly reminded that the death is "not suspicious." Suspiciously, no one is saying how or where or under what circumstances the body was discovered, or which person spoke to him last and what was said on that occasion. We are, in short, not getting the details we should expect to get.
floated the story that the guy used drugs
, but they've also spoken in very general terms about health problems
. Remember, the press won't allow themselves to find the deed "suspicious" unless the cops so declare -- even though this is a story about
police corruption. And news corruption.
Between this non-suspicious death and the very non-suspicious decision to bury Osama Bin Laden at sea (and not to show any videos of the raid, even though we know that some soldiers wear miniature cameras which relay real-time feed to commanders) -- well, I'm starting to wonder about the people who write the news. It's as though they're trying to create
paranoia."People haven't been formulating enough conspiracy theories. We need to encourage them. We need to make the job easier."
Let's make it a contest: Try to think up a new event that even the most fiercely non-paranoid writer would find irresistible fodder for conspiracy theorizing. Hmm. How about...
How about a political assassination in which the prime suspect is named Oswald Ray Wilkes? And he commits "suicide" with two bullets, one above each ear? And the police tell us: Nothing suspicious here; move along...
Or how about this: The Chrysler Building suddenly disappears. No explosion: It just vanishes in an instant. The government refuses to acknowledge that such a building ever existed; all photographs and references to it have been erased from the internet. And the news media tell us: Nothing suspicious here; move along...