The hypocrisy was breathtaking in its scope, duration and intensity. Indeed, so "hysterical" was the backlash, Western leaders appeared to be outdoing themselves in carrying the can for Washington, with arguably Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott leading the pack by earlier threatening to "shirt-front" the Russian president over the issue during his official visit to this country last November for the 2014 G20 meeting in Brisbane. Coming from a national leader on the world stage, this unprecedented, petulant outburst was something to behold. But such was the fervor of the times regarding MH-17 especially, and more broadly, the anti-Russian mood that prevailed earlier in the year over Russia's "invasion" of the Ukraine in the aftermath of the U.S.'s prefabricated coup d'etat.
Yet even putting aside the reality Abbott was doubtless playing to local audiences given the number of Aussies killed in the shoot-down (to say nothing of his rock-bottom domestic political stocks at the time), it was clear from this moment the anti-Russian mood across the West at least within official circles -- if the effective G20 snubbing of Putin was any indication -- had indeed reached a crescendo if it hadn't taken on a life of its own.
The MH-17 incident proved to be a powerful lightning rod through which the bear baiting could effectively be channeled by all and sundry. If MH-17 was geopolitical 'manner from Heaven' it was also the gift that kept on giving for the neoconservatives and their interventionist confreres, along with those American allies wanting to ingratiate themselves with the Beltway Bandits on both banks of the Potomac.
Then, after the G20 in Brisbane, the collective Western umbrage died out. The intensity and duration of the ongoing anti-Russian feeding frenzy was completely at odds with the abruptness with which the story disappeared from the news cycle. The silence on MH-17 might have been deafening, yet it spoke volumes at the same time, and still does. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Danger of an MH-17 'Cold Case'."]
That said, in retrospect it seems it was only a matter of time before someone somewhere sought to revisit the story complete with the "Putin did it" narrative. Cue here "60 Minutes" Australia!
The Dogs Not Barking
Now we can only surmise that this recent revelation purporting to be the definitive account of what actually happened to, and who was responsible for, the MH-17 shoot-down was the end result of a decision by the "60 Minutes" folks to boldly go where their colleagues in other MSM outlets feared to tread, fears we might surmise were based on the old adage that it's better to let sleeping media dogs lie after all.
Moreover, one suspects this may have been an attempt by "60 Minutes" at brand 'rehab', since for those of us with a more nuanced view of how the MSM really works have known for some time said "brand" has become somewhat shop-soiled over the years. And given "60 Minutes" status as a flagship MSM marque -- whether in Australia or in the U.S. -- going down this path was always going to attract people's attention. For this reason alone it was fraught with peril, so they just had to get this one right!
Which is to say, this was the only way they could go if they were attempting to revive the MH-17 story. Considering the basic laws governing the media news-cycle, efforts to do so had to be accompanied by some groundbreaking new insights, or at least the next best thing. And one can only wonder what the "next best thing" might have looked like short of finding the 'smoking gun' (or should we say the 'smoking BUK') and identifying the persons who fired it. This was especially the case given the hammering the same media gave the issue from the outset.
But in declaring unequivocally they had indeed done all this, in the process correspondent Michael Usher and his "60 Minutes" team of investigators may have not only opened up a can of worms, they might also have bitten off more than they can chew and dug themselves into an even deeper hole in one fell swoop. They are going to look awfully silly if they aren't able to sustain the narrative they have assembled from their investigations. The proof will be in the pudding going forward, the "pudding" in this case being largely whether the general public in Australia or anywhere else accepts their conclusions, and whether other MSM outlets pick up on the story and continue to run with it. And as of this writing, there appear few signs their MSM confreres -- either in Australia or in the U.S. -- are chomping at the bit to do so. And who knows what the official investigation team itself will make of it? One can't help but wonder as to how they will respond to "60 Minutes" 'scooping' them in their designated task.
With all this in mind, if Robert Parry of Consortium News has anything to do with it, rather than gaining any ongoing traction, the story as it stands will be stopped in its tracks. Parry is someone who has taken a very strong interest in the MH-17 incident, and in the broader situation in the Ukraine. After viewing the "60 Minutes" report, he was to put it mildly less than impressed with Usher and Co.'s "findings."
Now because readers can decide for themselves by viewing the various links herein and doing their own additional research if so inclined, there's little point rehashing the minutiae of the "60 Minutes" revelations or providing a blow-by-blow account of Parry's own responses. It is however worth noting some of the key points.
A Video Mismatch (Made in Ukraine)
To begin with, Parry suggests that "60 Minutes" might have "faked" a key piece of evidence in arriving at its conclusion -- in claiming that it had located the spot where a video was taken after the shoot-down and showing what appears to be a BUK launcher making a getaway. The "60 Minutes" team claimed the spot was in rebel-controlled Luhansk and the launcher was fleeing back to Russian territory. However, Parry noted that the scene in the earlier video didn't match the site shown by "60 Minutes." [See Consortiumnews.com's "Fake Evidence Blaming Russia for MH-17?"]
Further, Parry pointed to one of the main bones of contention for those of us who have had great difficulty accepting the official position, that being "the dog-not-barking question of why the U.S. government has withheld its intelligence data." This is a not unimportant consideration by any means and one to which we'll return.
Not unexpectedly the "60 Minutes" folks in response took considerable umbrage at Parry's suggestion they were engaging in journalistic "sleight-of-hand" in the way they had framed their narrative and presented their "ground-breaking new insights." One member of the investigative team tweeted that Parry had made a "huge and embarrassing mistake" -- but declined to elaborate on what it was.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
5
4
4
