A word about conspiracy theories

I don't publish conspiracy theories. I also don't publish stories from supposed journalism sources I've never heard of. Often the two go hand in hand.

I just felt the need to post this because there's been a marked increase, of late, of people sending me all sorts of stuff from sources I (and I suspect they) have never heard of, and about things that, while perhaps intriguing, sound kind of goofy.

To wit, Jeff GannonGuckert is really a small boy from the midwest kidnappped when he was 12 and forced into sexual slavery that led him all the way to a sex ring in the Bush 41 White House and now into Bush 43. Uh huh.

At the expense of those of you I know I'm going to tick off by saying this, bullshit. I've looked at many of those sources, and if you look at those sources' other "stories" they're about as credible of journalists as GannonGuckert himself. (Oh, and by the way, Arlen Specter is apparently dying of AIDS according to one of those sources - who knew?)

That's not to say wild theories are always untrue. Who'd have thought that Nixon would be running a break-in of the Democratic headquarters? Or Clinton doing an intern in the Oval Office? Or that GannonGuckert would actually turn out to be a hooker and we'd actually get the proof? Yes, Virginia, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you're not being followed.

But. Just because you're paranoid and may actually be being followed doesn't mean you announce it to the world before you have the facts.

And that's where I think reputable blogs differ from those that are giving me some heartburn of late. None of the top blogs running the GannonGuckert story published any of the more damning details without absolutely incontrovertible proof in hand. When the blogs had proof that Gannon's personal URL was owened by a company that owned male escort URLs, they printed it. When this blog had absolute proof that GannonGuckert was a hooker, that's when we printed it - not 4 days before when we first got the story. We did our research, our due diligence, got our facts in a row, and even reached out to GannonGuckert (who didn't reply).

My point is that having a voice, whether it's a popular blog or just an email account, brings with it some responsibility. I think all of us, left and right, should think about what information we may be helping spread before we spread it. That's all I'm saying.

And, speaking of conspiracy theories, I always used to make fun of "the black helicopter crowd." I.e., those people, usually in the northwest, who live in shacks, have every weapon on the planet, and are waiting for Mulder and Scully to bust in (in their mythical black helicopter) and take away their guns.

Well, funny thing happened a while back. I was talking on the phone to a client, and I hear a loud noise outside my window. I look out and see this across the way:



Hmmm, I think. Doesn't quite look like a news helicopter, and certainly isn't Marine One. Then it's starts heading my and flies literally over my apartment, so I snap another pic:



Like I said: Sometimes conspiracies are based on a kernel of truth. All I ask is that you check them out first before going all nuts on them.