Why You Should Definitely Keep Talking About Seth Rich
Caitlin Johnstone
24057

On this one we’ll have to agree to disagree. The only one likely to know who leaked the DNC emails is Julian Assange, and even given his dedication to protecting his sources, does it not strike you as odd he hasn’t embraced the Seth Rich narrative? After all, the man is dead, so he can’t be arrested or otherwise harmed. There’s no benefit for Assange to remain silent.

Worse, citing Kim Dotcom as anything even remotely resembling a reliable source, especially given his current legal status, undermines the whole narrative without some kind of verification. I understand the urge to embrace everyone under indictment in the US as a victim, but equating Dotcom with the likes of Manning and Snowdon is, frankly, offensive. Sometimes, as the old saying goes, a cigar is just a cigar—and a cybercriminal is just a cybercriminal hoping to drum up sympathy.

Falling into conspiracy theories isn’t going to help if the goal is to educate people to the ways in which they’re being manipulated by the corporate media. In fact, it will have just the opposite effect. I know because I’ve posted actual, verified facts and been accused of being “brainwashed by conspiracy theories.”

I can also understand why people on a crusade might be inclined to dismiss the genuine pain they may be causing real people on the grounds the ends justify the means. They don’t. There are always other means, and in investigative journalism the rule is trust, but verify. Right now, there is no way to verify any of what’s been said about the death of Seth Rich. Saying the fact the police haven’t solved his murder is evidence of malfeasance on their part is simply not true.

It’s all but impossible to “solve” a random mugging unless there’s a pattern of such crimes with sufficient similarities sufficient evidence points to a perp. And it’s standard procedure for police to withhold details of a crime while the investigation is open—anyone who watches cop shows on TV or reads police procedurals knows that.

So, yes, we must continue to call the corporate media on their obvious propaganda, and there are already encouraging signs that our doing so is having an effect. However, we also need to be aware that our own credibility is at stake, and that the powerful interests generating the propaganda have plenty of clout to undermine our efforts. I call it the “Caesar’s wife” rule: we have to work hard to be “above reproach.”

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.