People are losing trust in mainstream media because of perceived biased coverage of the Gaza genocide. If that erosion of trust is real, why isn’t it prompting wider public re-examination of historical cover-ups and contested narratives — Watergate, Iran–Contra, Iraq, even shifting beliefs about who “beat” the Nazis? If we don’t question how past information was shaped, what’s the point of preserving evidence (e.g., Gaza genocide evidence recently removed from YouTube by Google)? Won’t this all be forgotten in a few years, the same way all those previous events are no longer discussed?
What’s stopping a sustained, constructive public inquiry into these parallels between past cover-ups and current information control? Where are good, constructive places to discuss these issues without falling into unproductive conspiracy spirals?
What’s stopping a re-examination of historical cover-ups? I think you answer your own question when you say: where’s a good place to discuss this without going into conspiracy spirals? I mean that any time topics like this come up, people who are sincerely interested have to constantly militate against the “conspiracy theory” stigma. If you’re hit with that label, you’re persona non grata in academia, news media, and mainstream accounts on social media. That’s what stops people. The places to discuss conspiracy adjacent topics would be alternative platforms like this, until news media slowly come around on accepting anomalies many years after the fact: Jack Ruby did have mob ties; the Saudis did seem to fund hijackers, etc.