Talk:Guerrilla News Network/Archive 1


 * Just a note that comments should go at the BOTTOM of the page, please, as otherwise the discussion gets scattered all over the place. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Point well taken. Thanks. That's fine if you want to change any of the information about the various GNN productions. I was just trying to add balance by showing GNN's body of work - and that was the text that I had. If you're going to discuss GNN and the various accusations about us you have to show what we've done. If other editors are not going to take the time to add those sections and the decscriptions of our work, then someone has to. I've gone in and removed much of the text that I pulled from our site and rewrote some descriptions so that they are not promotional. I urge the editors to go in and add/change whatever text they want in the various sections. If you're not familiar with the work, please become so - because frankly it's unfair for people to write about us withour actually viewing our content. Furthermore, in my first post here I directly respond to several allegations. In my second post below, I was trying to illustrate that the accusations themselves are driven by personal grievances. In addition, I address the fact that Sunday magazine and the SmartAmerican are not reliable sources because they simply reposted the original forum entry written on GNN without any kind of fact-checking. Please let me know which other accusations I have not addressed and I will address them. Please ask the accusers to show evidence that we have "been hostile" to the 9/11 Truth Movement, for instance, or that I have told people not to protest the war. This is flatly not true and I won't allow it to be published. Here is my take on war protests (http://www.gnn.tv/B09283). If anything I'm calling on people to be more radical:

"We’ve been getting into a heated debate here over the relative merits of street protests. My position in a nutshell: they’re important (if anything, for making sure we still can, but also for energizing the activist base), but I don’t think have much effect on public opinion, I’m sad to say. They surely don’t scare the establishment unless they actually start shutting shit down, like they do in France. I was called a defeatist for saying so. But one person’s defeatism is another’s realism. I’m absolutely not arguing for people to stay home (for the record, I had a wedding booked long in advance I had to attend this weekned, so I didn’t make it) – I’m just saying that let’s not have illusions about what’s being accomplished by taking to the streets alone. I think the most important thing is to come up with a more concrete plan for withdrawal from Iraq.

Finally, if you're going to make the wild accusation that Ian Inaba is somehow tied to the Mossad because the CEO of a company he used to work with once worked in Israeli intelligence, then you have to provide balance that discusses the nature of Ian's recent work. He left the world of finance and the possiblity of making millions of dollars to join GNN. He reported the chapter in True Lies about Cynthia McKinney which details how AIPAC and the pro-Israel lobby poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into an effort to silence her. If you take the time to examine GNN's coverage of Israel, including a recent Guerrilla Journalism Fund supported trip to Lebanon by reporter David Enders, you'll see it has been overwhelmingly critical. '''Overall I think you did a great job cleaning up the page. But if you're going to talk about GNN (and me in particular) and 9/11 Truth you have to discuss our work on the subject, including the foreword I wrote for the Big Wedding.''' Lastly, what is your evidence that the Ford Foundation is currently "CIA" connected? I am genuiely curious. - Anthony

I have fixed much of the Disinformation Accusations section, and removed many weasel words and unncessary sentences. I am keeping the other sections that Anthony put in, but I am going to urge others to edit them in the future... Many of these things seem directly out of GNN's promotional material, word-for-word. This is an Encyclopedia, not an advertisement for GNN's products, so I imagine that this page will need major cleanup after Anthony's little makeover.

--CurtainCall29 02:06, 25 October 2006

Anthony Lappe, this talk section is not a soapbox for you to air out your personal grievances with other people. In your two massive rants on this talk page, you haven't addressed a single one of the accusations on the Wiki page itself, though it appears you have deleted and heavily edited many of them, as well as drowning the page in advertisements for GNN videos and products.

--CurtainCall29 01:51, 25 October 2006

Contrary to a recent entry, GNN is not represented by NS Bienstock. The fact that an anonymous person could come here and post that we were without checking their facts first is a demonstration of how reckless the accusers of GNN are. If I hadn't deleted it, I'm sure no one would have demanded proof. This is a warning and an appeal to the responsible Wiki editors to tread carefully here. There are personal agendas driving the barrage of unfounded accusations here and it doesn't make for accurate entries. For instance, one of the more active self-proclaimed enemies of GNN is a documentary producer named Andrew Stomowich. Andrew at least has the courtesy of revealing his real name, as opposed to the other anonymous and cowardly accusers. He frequently makes wild and unsubstantiated claims against GNN, Anthony Lappe in paricular. For instance, he claims Lappe was out to "smear" British PM George Galloway for his "support of the Palestinians," when in fact Lappe never said anything remotely close to that. Lappe, like BBC reporter Greg Palast, merely pointed out that Galloway met with the fascist dictator Saddam Hussein and told him he'd love to "march to Jerusalem" with him. He also claims GNN sought to discredit the idea that DU is dangerous, when in fact we did the exact opposite. We purchased a Geiger counter and did our own radiation tests in the battlefields of Iraq at great risk to our personal health and reported back that we found evidence of high levels of DU radiation and that after an extensive investigation in Iraq and back in the US that it is our belief that is a clear and present danger to Iraqi civilians and US troops - see our film BattleGround and our book True Lies. In other words, the exact opposite of what he claims. Lastly, while I appreciate the editors' attempts to provide balance here, it makes a mockery of the idea of this entire site when three or four disgruntled people can make a wild accusation with three or four unrelated facts and have them be an entire section in an organization's entry. These issues are "hotly contested" by less than a handfull of people. The way this page is written it is as if there were credible, reasonable people discussing these accusations. The fact that a magazine in Vancouver published the orginal rant does not validate it. I talked with the editor there and they made no effort to fact check it at all, they even admitted they had no idea who wrote it. If there is way to directly contact the responsible editors who have generously spent their time editing this page, please let me know. Much appreciated. - A.L. GNN

This is the new McCarthyism. Or more accurately, the new COINTELPRO. If you don't agree with someone, call them a government agent. It's the same tactic the FBI used with the Black Panthers and other radical groups to create dissention. Spread the lie that one member is an undercover agent and the group slowly turns on itself. Back then they did it with posters, pamphlets and whispers in back alleys, now it's electronic. It's called divide and conquer. I ask you, which is the real psy-op, the tiny group of anonymous netizens who spread lies and disinformation about a group of progressive journalists or the journalists themselves who have investigated the CIA and other government agencies, the governments lies about 9/11, and the US military's use of DU, among other topics?

The disinformation section is an absolute joke. It is not a "theory" - it's one or two people's paranoid idea. There is no mention whatsoever of GNN's large body of work which would provide the uninformed reader a counter to the absurd allegations made by two or three disgruntled anonymous former GNNers. This body of work includes investigations into the CIA's involvement in the drug trade (a short film that won the Sundance Online Film Festival), the U.S. military's use of DU (True Lies, BattleGround), the perils of electronic voting machines and the vicious attacks on the former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, one of the most outspoken critics of the Bush administration and the pro-Israeli lobby and one of the leading figures in the 9/11 Truth Movement (True Lies, American Blackout), among numerous other topics. GNN devoted a chapter in their book to the 9/11 truth movement and produced one of the first independent docs about the various unanswered questions. More recently, GNN's editor Anthony Lappe wrote the foreword to Sander Hicks' The Big Wedding, one of the best investigations into the unanswered questions about 9/11. More recently, he published an article by Hicks about the growth of the movement, in addition to an article critiquing it - in other words: balance. Also recently the GNN community sent a reporter to southern Lebanon, where he risked his life reporting on Israel's use of cluster bombs (he must have just been doing that to throw you off the Mossad trail right?). Another completely false accusation is that Lappe has called for people not to protest the war. Like all of their accusations, there is a grain of truth and a mountain of distortion. Here are examples from a thread discussing antiwar protests:

Lappe: More than anything street protests are get ways to energize people and show individuals are out there who share your values. I just saw last year people who spent literally the whole year preparing for the RNC protests – and for what? What was gained by the street protests during the RNC, very little. I think they were important. But all the planning, all the splinter groups, etc was a monumental waste of time. Time is finite, so are man/woman hours. There should have been one big march, where everyone showed up and marched. End of story.

This Wiki page proves how a small clique of disgruntled anonymous people can use Wikipedia to further their own agenda. It really is a shame. I urge the responsible editors here to do their homework and provide the proper balance and depth about GNN's work and ideas before they allow the lunatic fringe to use an open publishing platform to unfairly impugn the work of a small group of dedicated journalists. It's not a joke. This kind of disinformation can not only hurt honest and hardworking people's careers, it could possibly endanger their lives when they report from countries in which being a CIA agent can get your head cut off. - Anthony Lappe, GNN

Cleaned up the disinformation section a bit, added updated links. Seems to me like that section might become a battleground between people who believe that theory and people who don't. Hopefully we can find a neutral common ground for it. --CurtainCall29 02:05, 16 October 2006

I really don't think this page needs to become a forum for Fetch's paranoid grudge against Shogo, and nor does it need to overemphasize the disinfo allegations. Perhaps CurtainCall29 and Fetch need to realize that Wikipedia exists as an encyclopedia and a source of information, and not as a clearinghouse for personal grudges, speculation, and ranting. I deleted the entirety of the Fetch's additions to the page simply because they were pure opinion, and also inappropriate for Wikipedia. I'd like to emphasize to both of you that there are plenty of forums - which you're taking full advantage of - to air out your perceptions and greivances. This is not the place.

Point 5 in the allegations list is subjective and has no place. I already covered that above, and it's not evidence of anything but political moderation - which one can embrace or not, but it's not evidence. It's opinion.

I fixed many of MountainMan's spelling and grammatical errors, and removed several weasel words from the article.

Let's keep it neutral, please. Nobody has edited the primary header to describe GNN as an intelligence operation, and the accusations have been relegated to their own sub-section. Why that sub-section, then, needs to be heavily edited with a pro-GNN bias is beyond me.

--CurtainCall29 12:31, 19 October 2006

I think the page is adequately neutral at this point. What may be percieved as a pro-GNN bias is in fact nothing but an effort to remove anti-GNN bias and objectively analyze each point.

However, I think the current iteration is evenhanded towards each point of view, which is indeed sort of the point. I deleted the assertion that the accusation against the primary accuser was "disproven" as many believe he has some sort of personal agenda at work, whether or not he's involved with the new site. Furthermore, I added in a mention of the fact that some GNNers have rejected the "connecting the dots" strategy as logically unsupportable and unnecessarily speculative. Whether you agree or not, I think that's a valid criticism that has been raised at GNN, and it should be included.

If you're satisfied with the current state of things on this page, I don't think that back-and-forth counteredits supporting whatever point of view you defend is particularly productive - so let's cool it.

MountainBum83 19:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think it's reasonably neutral at this point.

--CurtainCall29 01:15, 20 October 2006

Expand
This needs to be expanded, with profiles of the editors, some historical information, and a more detailed explanation of the site's/organisation's various features.

Who's removing the Disinformation Accusations section?! I thought we had found some kind of neutral common ground.

This is totally absurd.

-CurtainCall29

Certainly not me. I was satisfied with the way things were.

Thankfully, I've saved a copy on my hard drive. I'll reinstate the disinfo section as soon as I have time to do so.

Too bad.

MountainBum83 23:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * When you do add it back, you might want to find a source that isn't a forum post - that's very, very iffy when it comes to considering verifiability. It would also be good to get some other outside sources into the article, which is lacking in sourcing right now. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool MountainBum83, hopefully you can upload that, if not I will write a new one tomorrow or whenever I have spare time.

And Tony Fox, you should realise that the forum post is where the authors decided to publish the work in question after deleting it from GNN. The facts it provides are understood to be true by both "sides" of this debate; what's disagreed upon is the conclusions that are drawn from the facts presented. As for sourcing, many of the links seem to lead to sources.

If you were the one who deleted that section, I'd ask that you not do so again; that forum post has received over 10,000 views in the past several days, and this issue is absolutely relevant to GNN right now, and deserves a place on GNN's wikipedia entry.

--CurtainCall29 11:21, 20 October 2006


 * I haven't deleted a thing, as you might note from the article history. I came in from another page (I forget what), saw the debate, and noted that section was based on a forum post. According to the verifiability policy I linked to up above, self-published sources are generally not acceptable as good third-party sources; it mentions blogs as being one of the unacceptable sources, and I tend to lump forums into that group. There are no reliable, verifiable third-party sources in the rest of the article. It needs work to meet the verifiability requirements. That's all I'm saying. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well, the piece has been run on Sunday Magazine: http://sundaymag.ca/index.php?id=435 and http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=109&contentid=3980 Conspiracy Planet, to name just a few established sources. I'd recommend putting a link to one, such as Sunday Mag, as well as a link to the original article on SmartAmerican, so that both the verifiability criteria is met and people can still access the original document itself. Unfortunately, it looks like the version that Sunday Magazine printed doesn't include all of the in-text links that the SmartAmerican version has, and they're rather essential for any reader to verify many of the claims made in the article.

If MountainMan hasn't re-edited it by tomorrow night I will write a new disinformation section with these revised verifiability-related facts added.

--CurtainCall29 02:18, 21 October 2006


 * I think the only problems I'd see with those sources is that they both look to be reprints of the forum post, and I'm almost certain that Conspiracy Planet has been rejected as a reliable source in other articles, though I can't find such discussion close to hand. Sunday Magazine, I'm not sure about as a reliable source (mostly since I live in the city it's from, and have never heard of it), but hey, it's better than no sources at all. Good luck with the article - I'll leave you to it. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Concerns
Well, I was just going to monitor this article from the sidelines, but it looks like it needs some more attention with the latest changes. Here are the concerns I, as an uninvolved person, see with this article right now:
 * Sourcing. I said it before, I'll say it again - this article needs reliable sources to bring it in line with the verifiability policy. I'm not just pointing out the disinformation section, which I still feel is very, very marginal for sourcing, but the entire article. Where are the reports on GNN itself? Where are the independent reports on the various GNN projects? I see some mentions of reviews, but no links to the original articles. It would be great if the folks who are now involved in the discussion can track some of those down.
 * POV: There's quite a bit. I note the long comment from Ian Inaba about the "Mosh Continues" bit - that is entirely POV and should be removed or heavily rewritten, for example (and the numbers cited need to be sourced). Anything that uses the word "our" is unencyclopedic and should be avoided. Please look over the neutral point of view policy.
 * Advertising: The long lists of projects do indeed seem to be promo material more than anything else, and should be reduced.

I'm bringing these concerns up so the editors involved with the article will consider them. If it's necessary, I'll dive in and try to clean some of this up myself, but I'd rather see the folks who are working on the article handle that themselves. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony - These are very important concerns. Thank you Tony for raising them. I have gone through and deleted any GNN promotional copy from the document. I was really just putting that in as placeholders for other objective editors to take the ball and do their own research (and at the very least view the material). I mean how can you honestly give credence to the idea we are a CIA front when two of our first projects dealt with the CIA's drug dealing operations and the importation of Nazi scientists into the US after WWII? Put yourself in our shoes for a minute. This whole process is positively Kafkaesque - a grouup of disgruntled anonymous people start claiming you're a government agent. It's absolutely surreal. I respect your efforts here on Wiki and I greatly appreaciate you adding your two cents, but the fact still remains that even with the editing that has been done, Wiki is being used by a tiny group of anonymous people to spread lies about honest journalists. I hope you consider the effects of allowing this kind of disinformation to be spread via Wiki - it is slander. You are correct, the "disinfo" section is completely marginal for sourcing, and as I've said is little more than guilt by association. I'll grant the USIA and Nigeria projects were interesting and possibly controversial, that is why we have openly listed them on our bios for years and have answered numerous questions about them. I have no problem with them being listed. But to raise the issue about Inaba's former boss, for instance, is beyond six degrees of separation and discredits this whole enterprise. Do you know anything about who is posting this material? Do you know anything about their agenda? Finally, I don't think listing our library in itself is promotional. I am new to Wiki, but this is supposed to be comprehensive, correct? Please fill in the descriptions. Please urge people to find independent reports on GNN - there are many out there. Check our press page, there are positive and negative appraisals. - A.L. GNN


 * Thanks for addressing some of the concerns. I'm going to try and get some more eyes on the article for further consideration. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I added some information about the "accusers." It's important information to note that they admit to being four people. I'm not trying to make this personal, but the fact is this is a personal grudge by a tiny group of disgruntled former community members and it's only fair for our accusers to be identified so that their true motivations can be made apparent. I think it's absolutely crucial that Wiki not allow anonymous people to make serious allegations like this. You're allowing an all-too-common spat on a fractitious web forum hijack an objective encyclopedic listing. This is the kind of amateurish crackpottery that undermines the whole Wiki experiment. It also undermines the most basic notions of justice and accountability. See this thread for more on who is doing the accusing and why: We have openly disclosed our entire work histories, our funding sources, our pictures, even where we live. At least add a link to Kafka's The Castle and/or maybe Our Man in Havana. A.L. GNN

Rewrite to try and clean up POV and other issues
Well, I'm probably a fool to get stuck into this issue, but this article does need help before it gets out of hand. So, what I've done is a rewrite of the entire article, tightening it up, removing some of the badly unsourced stuff, finding a few other sources, and generally trying to make it work a bit better under the verification, reliable sources and other guidelines and policies. I'd invite participants here to take a look at the draft over here and provide comments HERE, please. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony, regarding:

Controversy

In October 2006, a small group of GNN site members posted their beliefs that GNN is in fact an American intelligence disinformation operation.[4] Their statement suggests that editors and producers with the GNN have worked with groups such as the USIA and CIA, as well as with other organizations such as Israeli companies with ties to the military. The critics also stated that funding from the Ford Foundation, which had been tied to the CIA in the past, had been received for the creation of "American Blackout." GNN editors have denied the accusations as speculative, and suggest the accusers, most of whom have remained anonymous, are engaging in speculation and may be engaging in personal agendas.[citation needed]

I'd recommend including the Sunday Mag reprint of "GNN Is A Psy-Op" as a second source for the first sentence to meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards. I would also clean up several sentences in terms of grammar, clarity, and accuracy, to read:

In October 2006, four long-time GNN site members went public with their theory that GNN is an American intelligence disinformation operation.[4] This belief is rooted in several facts:

1. GNN site editor Anthony Lappe's past work for the USIA in Palestine. Lappe has defended his work, noting that he was young at the time and that the experience helped him learn about the internal workings of the US State Department/.

2. GNN co-owner Stephen Marshall's participation with a pirate radio station in Africa, Voice of Free Nigeria, which was dedicated to overthrowing the Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha. Abacha's regime accused the station, Voice of Free Nigeria, of being a CIA front, but Marshall has denied this.

3. GNN producer Ian Inaba's previous employment with Check Point, an Israeli technology firm founded by Gil Shwed, who served in the secretive Unit 2800 eletronic warfare branch of the Israeli military. Whether Inaba's employment with Check Point should be regaded as a link to Israeli intelligence remains disputed.

4. The fact that GNN received funding from the Ford Foundation for post-production work on the documentary film American Blackout. The Ford Foundation has been linked to the CIA in the past. There is no evidence that the Foundation's grant led to any changes in the film.

5. The perception that GNN's editorial slant shies away from more radical thought, such as the 9/11 Truth Movement, Direct Action, and Illegal Acts.

GNN editors and some site members have denied the accusations as speculative, and suggest that the accusers, most of whom have remained anonymous, are engaging in speculation and may be motivated by personal agendas.[citation needed]

I think that this just explains the situation more. Let me know what you think, or how we can advance from here.

--CurtainCall29 01:25, 26 October 2006


 * The reason I've condensed this section down to where it is, and used just the link to the original post as a reference, is because there's a total lack of non-trivial reliable reporting on the topic, anywhere. The Sunday Magazine piece is a direct reprint of the original post, and after considering it, I can't believe it passes the guidelines for verifiability or reliable sources. Note that the 'citation needed' tag at the end of my paragraph is for the WHOLE paragraph, not just the last sentence. Please take a look at WP:RS and WP:V for indications of what's necessary under those guidelines. I also feel that if the original post is included, it avoids Wikipedia as a source of analysis and interpretation, rather than an encyclopedia. We've absolutely got to follow the neutral point of view here, and analysis of the post will invariably drift off neutral. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a decent edit, and I think "controversy" is a much better word because there is no evidence of "misinformation" being presented and frankly, it's a slanderous term. So that's an improvement. But the whole section is still based on innuendo, putting the accused in the Kafkaesque position of having to prove a negative. I'm frankly disappointed that there aren't more neutral editors on Wiki who are looking at this and demanding some basic proof for a claim like that apart from our previous work histories which we have been completely forthcoming about for years. If we were secret agents, why would we disclose them? Why not add a section with our bios and some history about how GNN started? That can all be found on our FAQ page, on the press page there are numerous 3rd party articles about us, including interviews. I don't understand how you can say Sunday magazine is a second source when they just reprinted the orginal posting with no fact-checking whatsoever. Is that the kind of standards you guys have? That's called mobious strip fact checking. The key piece of misinformation that I challenge you to provide evidence to support is the claim that GNN's " GNN's editorial slant shies away from more radical thought, such as the 9/11 Truth Movement, Direct Action, and Illegal Acts." Without that claim, then what exactly are we doing as government agents? If the accusers cannot back up those claims, then their whole premise is shot ihmo. It comes down to not understanding the notion of balance and creating dialouge. These are some of the key goals of GNN.tv, so we often run articles that challege our readers to think in different ways. The accusers do not seem to be able to understand that basic journalistic function, and claim some hidden agenda. As I will show, there is none and these claims are completely false:

9/11: GNN produced one of the first documentaries to deal with 9/11 "conspiracy theories," entitled Aftermath. We shot intws in the US, Canada and the UK. Released on DVD it has been seen by tens of thousands of people. On the second anniversary of 9/11 the GNN community organized 15 spontaneous screenings of the film in cities across North America. In Toronto and SF, more than 1,000 people packed theaters. In our book, True Lies we discuss at length various 9/11 "conspiracy theories" in a generally supportive way. Our open source web site has been a hub for 9/11 truth info. As editor, I have personally encouraged our more prolific bloggers to share information with our readers on the topic. More recently, I helped edit Sander Hicks' The Big Wedding, one of the best books on the subject. I also wrote the foreword for it, signed Anthony Lappe, Editor, Guerrilla News Network. On my own blog, I have highlighted news items related to Able Danger and other developments. Prompted by articles by prominent far left writers like Alex Cockburn of Counterpunch criticizing the 9/11 truth movement, last month, I decided run to two articles looking at the 9/11 movement, one for, and one against. First I ran an article by Sander Hicks entitled Five Years Later: The Official Story Falls Apart. Then I ran an article (which I had to break into two because length limitations) by Bill Weinberg entitled [9-11 and the New Pearl Harbor http://gnn.tv/A02577]. Here is my editor's note:

Editor’s note: The following is the second part of an informal series of articles looking at the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement. In our first article, Sander Hicks claims that despite its problems, the movement that claims the Bush administration was involved, or at least knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, is gaining momentum. Here WW4’s Bill Weinberg offers a blistering attack on the entire enterprise. Weinberg joins Counterpunch’s Alex Cockburn, who himself recently joined the chorus of influential left-wing commentators who have weighed in on what they claim are unfounded and ultimately self-defeating conspiracy theories. Cockburn wrote:

"Richard Aldrich’s book on British intelligence, The Hidden Hand (2002), describes how a report for the Pentagon on declassification recommended that “interesting declassified material” such as information about the JFK assassination 'could be released and even posted on the Internet, as a ‘diversion,’' and used to 'reduce the unrestrained public appetite for ‘secrets’ by providing good faith distraction material'. Aldrich adds, 'If investigative journalists and contemporary historians were absorbed with the vexatious, but rather tired, debates over the grassy knoll, they would not be busy probing into areas where they were unwelcome.'

By the same token, I’m sure that the Bush gang, and all the conspirators of capital, are delighted at the obsessions of the 9/11 cultists."

You be the judge: [A.L.]

Direct Action: GNN has always been a strong supporter of direct action. Personally, I have reported on protests most of my career, even climbing up a 150 ft redwood tree to interview Julia Butterfly, one of my heroes. So this accusation is ridiculous. Our films are frequently shown at protests. One of our first videos, Countdown, included footage from the battle of Seattle. We ran one of the first intws with the ELF spokesman, and one with David Graeber, the anarachist professor. GNN's Stephen Marshall produced a feature film starring Rosario Dawson entitled This Revolution which centered around a group of anarchist protesters at the RNC. Stephen was arrested during the filming and spent time in jail. The charges were eventually dropped. More recently, on my Air America radio show I reported on the anti-logging direct actions going on in Oregon, and wrote about them on my blog. GNN's most profilic blogger posts daily updates on direct actions across the country, and news about cases such as the SHAC 7. Again, this is a case of narrowminded agenda-driven people seeing what they want to see. On my blog (which gets no more prominence than any other on the site), I have criticized the antiwar movement's tactics. Here is a good example:

We’ve been getting into a heated debate here over the relative merits of street protests. My position in a nutshell: they’re important (if anything, for making sure we still can, but also for energizing the activist base), but I don’t think have much effect on public opinion, I’m sad to say. They surely don’t scare the establishment unless they actually start shutting shit down, like they do in France. I was called a defeatist for saying so. But one person’s defeatism is another’s realism. I’m absolutely not arguing for people to stay home (for the record, I had a wedding booked long in advance I had to attend this weekned, so I didn’t make it) – I’m just saying that let’s not have illusions about what’s being accomplished by taking to the streets alone.

original link

As you can see, if anything I am calling for people to become more radical and serious in their direct actions. So that claim is flat out false.

Illegal acts: What does that mean exactly? We have never said don't commit illegal acts, we merely have a policy that you cannot post information about the commission of a specific illegal act on our site. In other words, you cannot say, "hey guys let's burn down the ski lodge" because that is illegal and could get us shut down, arrested and thrown in jail, a al Sherman Austin (whose case we have covered).

Finally, please provide evidence that GNN has tried to "moderate" our users political beliefs. We are an open forum where anyone can post to. We don't censor anything based on its political character.

I hope the neutral editors will take the time to examine GNN's work before you allow a tiny group of anonymous people to continue to spread lies about us. - Anthony Lappe, GNN

I just checked out the DRAFT page. Much better. Made a minor edit: funds from Ford were recieved after the film was completed and screened - so "creation" isn't a good work. AL

Added that BattleGround aired on Showtime. - AL

Their statement suggests that editors and producers with the GNN have worked with groups such as the USIA and CIA. - I did work for the USIA, but there is absolutely no evidence that we worked with or for the CIA. That surely needs to change.


 * Couple of things: first, please don't remove other peoples' comments from the page, as I've just had to replace my response to CurtainCall up above your coment, Anthony. Second, I did ask for *comments*, not edits, on the draft page, so please discuss changes HERE and I'll make the changes. That way we don't wind up with battles in two different places. =P Finally, to both sides of the debate: Wikipedia is not a debate forum. This isn't the place for argument and counterargument about these claims. It's an information source. That's what I'm aiming for with the draft. Please remember that. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My bad. I don't know how your comments got deleted, didn't mean to - I'm new to this, I must have accidentially deleted them bec we were posting at the same time. I also didn't realize you said don't make edits - that wasn't clear - it reads: THIS IS A DRAFT - DO NOT ADJUST WITHOUT DISCUSSION ON Talk:Guerrilla News Network at the top. I apologize. I think the draft looks good in general. I'm not saying for the above info to be included on the page, if that's what you're implying. This is for your information so you can make an informed judgment as to the validity of the claims. If you guys are not going to demand evidence to back up these accussations, then I'm forced to show you why they are wrong, not just about us being secret agents, but about us being "hostile to 9/11" etc. If it's an information source, then how can unfounded claims be given such credence? "Some people" claim the world is flat. Why not just list our full bios, and point out the USIA issue, etc there. Same with American Blackout. The way it's written now, this entry is still being used by a tiny group of people to advance their personal agenda. Lastly, I've said my piece, thanks Tony for injecting some sanity into this. And sorry for the missteps. As I said, I'm new to this, and as you can imagine, if you put yourself in my shoes, after working your ass for years challenging US government policies to have a bunch of anonymous cranks made wild accusations about you that could end up getting your, or your friend's, head cut off the next time you're in a country at war with the US, well, you take it seriously. A.L.


 * No worries on the newness - I was there once too. One of my key concerns with this article is, as you say, there is no evidence to back up the accusations. This is why I've suggested wording the controversy section as it is, and asked the folks who are requesting its addition to provide a better source. If it can't be backed up with a reliable source, then out it goes - that's generally how it works around here. Do please note that I'm just an editor, same as tens of thousands of others, and I have no official power over this or any article; I've joined this discussion to try and help shape a consensus that meets all of the Wikipedia guidelines. I understand the concerns of both sides of the discussion, and am hoping to help find a comfortable middle ground that provides us with an encyclopedic article without factual issues. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As an aside: something's gone screwy with the talk page; it looks like a full copy of it was pasted in at some point. I'm trying to fix it; I hope I haven't lost anyone's comments in the process. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I may have copy and pasted the page - I thought I was just copying my new text when we had a crossover. Sorry, again. Last point: Ian Inaba's "link" to Mossad. Are you your boss's keeper? What is the connection there? Is there any evidence that Ian has been working on behalf of Israel? His contribution to True Lies was reporting on how AIPAC targeted Cynthia McKinney. If anything, he has been overly favorable towards a woman who is one of the pro-Israel lobby's most hated politician. As far as GNN is concerned, if anything we run overwhelming critical material about Israel, including a recent Guerrilla Journalism Fund supported trip to Lebanon in which our reporter risked his life documenting the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas by the Israelis. Same w/ my connection to USIA. Is there any evidence that I have been working on behalf of the US government's interests? I traveled to Iraq and risked my life to show how our occupation of that country was going tragically wrong. I climbed on top of radioactive tanks, for god's sake. GNN has been banned by the US military. We consistently run articles critiquing the US government's propaganda efforts. That is why I brought up Nancy Snow. She is a friend of ours. She is the preemiment critic of USIA. How does she know so much? Because she worked there for two years in a high level position. I had a six week grant. I wasn't even an employee. If anything, I infiltrated them. Thanks again for reigning this in. - AL

Last point, I promise: another absurd element to this whole thing: if we were a US government psy op we would be an FBI operation - not CIA. We are a domesitc group. Unless there has been some radical change in the way the FBI and the CIA work, and the laws have been secretly rewritten, the FBI would be the ones running any kind of program to disrupt and infiltrate a domestic organization. Just thought I'd point that out. Please get them to explain their logic on that one. Furthermore, where exactly does the CIA come into this. I was working for the US State Dept (sure, the CIA uses the State Dept. as cover often but with no evidence whatsoever this was a CIA program, to say I have had any contact at all with the CIA is pure speculation. It's possible, I did. But I surely was not aware of it). Then Stephen's project: a murderous dictator in bed with the big oil companies says it's a CIA operation. What credibility is that? Finally, Ian's boss. Sure Mossad and CIA work closely, but again no proven connection even between his boss and the CIA, let alone Ian. The controversy with his boss was because the US gov was worried about Israeli snooping, so that sort of blows that out of the water as well. A.L.

Hi, um, for what it's worth, I think Tony's draft is excellent. It represents the core of the controversy without introducing any specific accusations against the site - none of which are properly sourced. -random GNNer

Is anyone around to contribute here? Did the accusers respond to questions about how we could be a CIA psy op and not FBI? Or did they provide any other proof? As far as I can tell "fact checking" here consists of looking up stuff on the internet. That's not fact checking. Fact checking starts with directly contacting your subject, and then ends when you can get two independent sources on that fact. The fact that four anonymous crackpots' "hunch" about GNN can rise to this level makes a mockery out of this site. - A.L.


 * Actually, I've been waiting for any further comment on the rewrite before I bring it in. Those claims have yet to be sourced. If no further issues arise, I'll bring the rewrite live shortly. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. As you imagine, this whole thing is surreal to me. Are you really going to include the "controversy" section? Frankly, I don't care anymore. I'm back to thinking the whole thing is funny. It's just another chapter in our bizarre history of run-ins with insane and paranoid people. But I care deeply about the future of participatory journalism, and this makes it a joke. I'm sorry that you've been put in this position. Good luck, and please let me know if you have any specific questions. A.L. GNN


 * What I'm trying to do is find a middle ground, and to do so, my intention has been to leave that paragraph there, with the request for citations included, and give the folks who have been wanting to add that information in an opportunity to properly source it. If sourcing doesn't show up within, say, a week or so after going live, it gets removed. Given your concerns, I may remove it and post it on this page with the request for citations; if properly cited, it would then be reintroduced. Would that be more amenable to you? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)