From xxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxxWed Feb  7 09:20:53 1996
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 15:10:46 GMT
From: "Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxx" 
To: bigred@duracef.shout.net
Subject: Re: Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 7 Num. 11

Brian - 

This morning I read a post on alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
entitled "L.J. Davis Interview." I believe it (or the comments
following) were attributed to you. 


   Note also that Mr. Davis does not tell us *why* he considers 
it a false line of inquiry. Is it perhaps because it is an area 
that gets a bit *scarey* to consider? With all respect to Mr. 
Davis, is he perhaps *afraid* to really look at it?

 Brian Francis Redman    bigxc@prairienet.org    "The Big C"

If this came from you, a followup is in order (and if it's not from
you, sorry for this e-mail :-)

I've been a member of the press for a number of years now....


Recently I've been pointing a few xxxxxx colleagues to the
Grabbe/Norman/etc. material. One of these folks - now a senior
executive at a major publication - began calling guys like Norman and
Rodriguez (Insight) to ascertain whether there was any credibilty to
their reporting; he came away convinced that there is something there.

But in the course of his discussions he also decided to be very, very
careful in any coverage of "Whitewater" (Systematics, Mena, etc)
because "I don't want to get sued....or killed."

So the mechanism you describe above is certainly on the mark.
Reporters are *afraid* to cover this material.

I also have been corresponding with another journalist at a major
business publication (another former colleague) on these topics.
Here's what he wrote a few days ago:

"Jim Norman is an excellent reporter. Personally, I find the
conspiracy beat to be a tough one to stake out any long standing
credibility in, and the Systematics/Inslaw/Whitewater stuff is too far
afield for my tastes."

So, again, I think you're quite on the mark when you say "With all
respect to Mr. Davis, is he perhaps *afraid* to really look at it?" 

Many in the public believe reporters to be slovenly or malevolent
because of this ongoing failure to cover "Whitewater." What they do
not understand that reporters - like many other citizens - have their
jobs, mortgages, families, and "credibility" to protect. And when they
take a look at Whitewater, many of them get spooked. 

Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx

By the way, Norman's statements that Paul Rodriguez at Insight was
[paraphrase] "told by an intelligence officer to back off of
Alltel/Systematics" is *wrong.* Rodriguez said it was a friend who
said this (not an "intelligence officer"), who simply suggested that
he be very careful of the legalities involved; reporters *do not* like
to be sued for libel, since their notes then become a subject of
scrutiny. Rodriguez is not pleased with the manner in which this has
been characterized by Norman.