One of the fascinating, albeit not too surprising, aspects of the Jeffrey Epstein death has been the reaction of the mainstream media. From the very first moment that the news hit that Epstein had died in prison from an apparent suicide, the mainstream media concluded that that is precisely what happened. Immediately, there was a spate of commentaries, op-eds, and editorials mocking and ridiculing any speculation about whether Epstein had been murdered or possibly even been secretly whisked out of the jail in which he was incarcerated. And all this took place even before an autopsy had been conducted on Epstein’s body!
Okay, I’m not saying that Epstein was in fact murdered or that someone else’s body was secretly substituted for his. He very well may have committed suicide, something that the autopsy ultimately said he had done. What I’m saying is that there was absolutely no skepticism among the investigative reporters, editorial writers, and op-ed writers in the mainstream press, not even before the autopsy was conducted.
Why? Wouldn’t we ordinarily expect the press to have skepticism when it comes to governmental conduct? Isn’t that one of the ideas behind freedom of the press — so that journalists will be free to keep a sharp and critical eye on what government is doing? If all that the press does is automatically accept whatever the government says, then what happens to the famous “watchdog” role that we have all been taught comes with a free press?
What is also interesting about this phenomenon is not only that the mainstream media automatically and immediately accepted the suicide version but also the way it immediately went on the attack against people on the Internet who were expressing skepticism about the official story. In fact, one almost got the impression, from the harsh nature of the attacks, that the mainstream press was actually playing an active role in trying to suppress any version of Epstein’s death different from the official one.
Before the autopsy was even conducted, the mainstream writers immediately began branding anyone who was expressing skepticism about the official account as a “conspiracy theorist.” That, of course, was the label that the CIA seized upon when people began questioning the official account of the Kennedy assassination back in the 1960s and 1970s. The CIA sent out a secret memo to its assets in the mainstream press advising them to label anyone who questioned the official account of the assassination a “conspiracy theorist,” which came to be a term of great opprobrium. The CIA’s strategy worked brilliantly, at least within the mainstream press, to such a point that today the biggest fear that mainstream journalists have is being labeled a “conspiracy theorist.”
Of course, back then the CIA actually had operatives, agents, and assets working within the mainstream press. No, that’s not a “conspiracy theory!” It is actually an established fact of a secret conspiracy between the CIA and mainstream journalists. The conspiracy was called Operation Mockingbird. Information about it can be found online. Under Operation Mockingbird, the CIA conspired to enlist mainstream journalists to serve as secret assets for the CIA who would expound the official CIA line in editorials and commentaries, but without disclosing their CIA connection.
That conspiracy, presumably, came to an end when it was uncovered and disclosed. But ironically, the end result seems to be the same as when Operation Mockingbird was in full effect. By automatically deferring to official accounts of deaths and other matters put out by U.S. officials, as well as by actively mocking people who express skepticism of official versions as “conspiracy theorists,” the CIA ended up with the same outcome as it was aiming for with Operation Mockingbird.
Another interesting aspect to this phenomenon is that the mainstream mindset applies only to governmental conduct, not private conduct. For example, suppose you were to ask the editorial writers, op-ed writers, and investigative journalists the following question: “Do you believe that drug cartels conspire to kill people?” All of them would respond: “Of course, they do. We see it all the time.” They would not have the remotest fear of being labeled a “conspiracy theorist.”
Apply the same question using the Mafia: “Do you believe the Mafia conspires to kill people”? The mainstream press answer would immediately be: “Of course it does. They’re still looking for Jimmy Hoffa’s body.” Again, no fear of being called a “conspiracy theorist.”
But then shift the question toward the federal government: “Do you believe that the CIA or other elements within the U.S. deep state conspire to kill people?” The answer is immediate: “Are you nuts? Are you some sort of conspiracy theorist? Our government would never do anything like that?”
Yet, soon after the CIA was formed in 1947, it secretly began preparing an assassination manual, which indicates that it was specializing in the art of assassination practically from the beginning. The manual, which the CIA kept secret for 40 years and which can be read online, detailed various ways that an assassination could be carried out. It also detailed ways to prevent people from discovering that the CIA was behind the killing. For example, the manual recommended throwing someone off a high building as a way to kill him because it would look like a suicide.
It is safe to assume that from the time that assassination manual began being developed, the CIA became increasingly more proficient in the art of assassination and cover-up. After all, that was more than 60 years ago. Specializing in something that long would ordinarily mean that they would get better and better at killing people as well as at covering up their role in the killings.
That means that when there is a death like that of Jeffrey Epstein, one would expect the mainstream press to want to examine it with a critical eye. This is especially true given various reports (on the Internet, not in the mainstream press) that Epstein might have had ties to some intelligence agency (see here) and also reports that he might have been running a blackmail operation involving sex with under-aged girls.
Again, I’m not saying that Epstein did not, in fact, commit suicide. He might well have committed suicide. So, please resist the impulse to send me an email calling me a “conspiracy theorist” (not that I care though). I’m just criticizing the dereliction of the mainstream press in fulfilling its journalist obligation to make certain that that really is what happened.