"Conspiracy theories" are becoming mainstream, but those who tangle with the subject, may become entangled... as the British BBC has recently found out in its handling of "The Conspiracy Files".

On February 18, 2007, the British BBC began a new series, "The Conspiracy Files", opening with 9/11. The series marked a small milestone, namely that after privately owned television channels, state television in Britain was finally taking note of the conspiracy angle. Would it take the topic seriously or not?
As there had been a one-off episode of this series broadcasted several months in advance, about the death of Princess Diana, expectations about this series should not have been too high. Still... In the run-up to February 18, producers Mike Rodin and Guy Smith gave equal time to the social profile of a conspiracy theorist and argued that there were genuine conspiracies, though the Kennedy assassination did not appear to be one of them. Already, this was dangerous ground, for the official verdict, in spite of what many believe, is not the Warren Commission's lone gunman, but the HSCA's conspiracy involving at least one other gunman.

So what did 9/11 bring? The work of apparently nine months of research, it was, rather than an in-depth look at the evidence, instead a profile of the conspiracy theorists and the sceptics. Hardly any mention, let alone thorough discussion, of the fact that five of the 19 suicide bombers are known to be alive and not at all connected with the hijackings, was made. Apart from the "quiz" on the BBC website, Smith's social message was underlined the preceding Friday, when he stated that "We're all conspiracy theorists at heart" and claimed that conspiracy theories persist because people are natural story-tellers who instinctively look for elaborate tales to describe events beyond their control.
The broadcast then focused on roughly ten items, which it seemed to suggest were the main components of the conspiracy theory: whether the WTC fell as the result of a controlled demolition or whether instead the planes brought it down. At no point does the programme make it clear that the 9/11 Commission's report states that it does not know how the WTC came down and that the documentary's discussion of this point is thus actually irrelevant.
"Were Jews forewarned about the attacks?" and the treatment of this question - which should never have been one - was the most blatant display of social manipulation imaginable on this issue. Another question: was WTC7 deliberately demolished by explosives? The 9/11 Commission makes no mention of this building. The BBC should have explored why no mention was made of this collapse, but instead it is the usual stand-off between conspiracy theorists and sceptics.

The likes of Alex Jones, who had been interviewed, did not lay low. And thus, the BBC came under continued fire when the following week, someone was reviewing the video archives of the BBC's 9/11 coverage and discovered an earth shaking incongruence: BBC reporters announced the collapse of the 47 story Salomon Brothers Building 23 minutes before the actual collapse. The BBC did not deny the problem, but failed to explain properly.
Attempt one: it stated that it had lost the tapes of their 9/11 coverage due to a "cock-up, not conspiracy". Why the BBC afterwards asked Google to remove the initial video which people had made available for viewing, is yet another question the BBC needs to answer - Google consented.
Part two of the explanation: the BBC stated that reporter Jane Standley can't remember what happened minute by minute. The problem is that Jane Standley, though she is in New York, seems to know as much as the BBC presenter in London. The BBC "has been told" that building 7 has collapsed. In short, someone fed the BBC this story ahead of what is deemed to be a totally accidental and unpredictable collapse. Rather for the BBC to admit that there is indeed a serious problem, and that they will try to find out whether they can find out who fed them this misinformation - which in essence is evidence that WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition - the BBC is running around in circles, coming up with ludicrous excuses.
Hence, they conclude: "We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening." But that, unfortunately, is precisely what did happen: they were fed a story, which at the time was erroneous, but which 23 minutes later proved to be factual. Furthermore, Standley was reading from a teleprompter, so there was a script... in advance of events happening. Worst: behind her, you can see Building 7 is still standing!

The Conspiracy Files continued with two documentaries, one on the death of David Kelly, which it ruled as a murder but then lost the plot by whitewashing the British intelligence agencies and claiming the Iraqis killed him, and the Oklahama City Bombing, in which it argued that Timothy McVeigh may not have been the sole bomber.
Once the lid is of the bottle, it's hard to replace it and hence, various BBC programmes have been trying to consider "conspiracy theories" as "sloppy thinking", as well as calling in the likes of actor Richard Schiff, who played Toby Ziegler to give his "expert opinion" on conspiracy theories. The mind boggles.
The final question is where to go from here. The BBC adopted a controversial stance over Iraq, in which it did not want to side with the official government position and questioned the intelligence reports and the reasons why we went to war. By adopting that stance, in short, the BBC was stating there was a conspiracy within the government on Iraq. Perhaps it should have devoted a documentary on that... as it may have been able to come up sensible, in-depth discussions, rather than the social or tabloid treatment it gave to the subjects in this series. The BBC tried to behave like the commercial channels, but it miserably failed. In short, it should not B.