Let's get this straight - Kill the Messenger (2014) Discussion

[–] palomine 10 years ago

Right on, Ryan. I never believed Gary committed suicide, especially by shooting himself in the head TWICE! In fact, this film could never have been released if it had told the truth about that subject. In that sense, it's just another layer of the cover-up.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] KittyKogs 10 years ago

This article is worth a read. http://www.newsreview.com/chico/return-of-the-messenger/content?oid=15 346991 His family genuinely believe he committed suicide.

reply

[–] AgentFalco 10 years ago

Good article thank you for posting - explains very clearly about his suicide. I always take it if his family were satisfied then that's good enough but some people need more convincing.

reply

[–] PrometheusTree64 10 years ago

Michael Hastings' brother trashed him in the press and encouraged the drug-addled theory (even though the toxicology report, misrepresented in the press, didn't blame his crash on illicit substances). And Oswald's brother was convinced Lee did it.

The family getting on board with the suicide scenario can hardly be considered the final word.

Sometimes they're pressured to go along with the official word, and sometimes they have no more of a clue than anyone else.

--

The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.

reply

[–] punishable-by-death 10 years ago

uhhh yeah... Just cos the 'family' is on board doesn't mean jack. They are either being paid huge amounts to lie, or that cover-up was so well done, they seem to do it a lot, that is actually convinced a grieving family looking for an answer.

I agree with what another poster said, in a sense this movie is yet another layer over the mistruth that was reported

"Some may never live, but the crazy never die"
www.epilepticmoondancer.net

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jville2 10 years ago

Don't confuse these morons with the facts.

Of course the CIA had him killed...many years after his story, and many years after he was a discredited ex-journalist who had nothing left with which to damage the CIA.

Sounds legit. 😒

reply

[–] leobourne 10 years ago

Yes.

reply

[–] vilj-1 9 years ago

Thanks for the link. Very good article. I am going to try "Real v Reel" to see what they have (if anything) on this film.

reply

[–] Lady_Elaine_Fairchild 9 years ago

Right if your husband and father were murdered by what you thought was your government, you too would be very afraid of the same thing happening to you and your kids can you blame them?
Out of fear...They would never say any different.

Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. B. Franklin

reply

[–] aftermik 9 years ago

he managed to shot himself in the head 2 times.

this guy was really stg !

reply

[–] appyyh 10 years ago

I remember Clinton was the president for most of the 1990s when Gary published his articles and died afterward. Did he order the CIA to cover up the findings of this drug deal? Why didn't Clinton bring the CIA officials to trials since he was the head of the Executive Branch of the US government?

reply

[–] craigbhill 10 years ago

Let's get this straight: The belief the president "orders" the CIA to take out a reporter is fairy tale-grotesque naivete. Au contraire, the CIA "advises" every president since JFK to do such-and-other in a friendly way, friendly because every president knows who done Dallas before they get in office or they wouldn't get close to getting in office and possibly say things like JFK said, like that the CIA has got to be reined in. In his case, he famously told others he was going to smash the criminal, traitorous CIA "into 1000 pieces".

~ Native Angeleno

reply

[–] leobourne 10 years ago

I agree 100 precent with craigbhill. The CIA "rules" every POTUS.

reply

[–] seanmaster25 10 years ago

Wow that's interesting. If anyone cares to help, my friend keeps insisting that the contents of this movie were exagerrated and untruthful. So I'm just asking, did the CIA really intentionally get cities rampantly run with drugs. Also was the scene where they tried to steal the evidence in his room, did that happen too?

reply

[–] murad23 10 years ago

Web was caught in several complete untruths and killed himself as a result. The LA Times, showed his completely bogus reporting.

A far as two gunshots to the head, that is not rare at all since the first one was a slight graze. His father and wife said he was profoundly suicidal.

After all the made up garbage in kill the messenger it was found that he had been making up stories virtually his entire career.

reply

[–] petera00 10 years ago

Have you studied anything in relation towards John Kerry and the investigation that took place in the 80's? Have you youtubed the commission that was held in south central after this report was released. The CIA director at the time was demoted because of that hearing. Webb's reporting brought to light a lot of untruths that the CIA was doing at the time. If you read Dark Alliance, you'll find out that all if it is like reading the encyclopedia brittanica... All facts and all dates are shown. Read it and find out for yourself. Watch the movie and find out for yourself about your supposed media darlings of the LA times. Hell find out who controls your beloved major media outlets... It sure isn't the people of the United States. They blew a major story and felt compelled to attack Webb because he published it years later. Sad part is they destroyed any integrity they had in the world of professional investigative journalism. Webb killed himself because of those cowardly morons. Another reason why mainstream media is a joke in this country. WMD's anyone?

reply

[–] seanmaster25 10 years ago

Thank you, this is exactly how I look at all this. More mainstream media cover ups to keep us in this veil of americanism.

reply

[–] Caulk_Rocket 10 years ago

Is a secretary in a DEA field office.

reply

[–] cscigu 8 years ago

Add in all the internet conspiracy hacks, and it clearly suggests that suicide is way more likely than the unnecessary, goofy notion that the CIA would re-ignite this charade with a theatrical hit.

reply

[–] shannon_cockburn 8 years ago

A far as two gunshots to the head, that is not rare at all since the first one was a slight graze.

The first gunshot was NOT a slight graze. Both bullets entered his right ear and exited his left cheek leaving two distinct exit wounds.

reply

[–] horst-kackebart 10 years ago

I can't believe you would doubt his suicide. The injustice he has experienced is nothing short of grotesque. I cannot imagine how painful it is to become as disillusioned as he was.

How would you cope after seeing everything you believe in shattered through your effort to protect and uphold it?

Why would anyone want to kill him when the story was long out of his hands by the time it happened?

reply

[–] seekingallthetime 10 years ago

Why would anyone want to kill him when the story was long out of his hands by the time it happened?

Wrong argument.
They killed him to make people believe that he found all of his reports and conclusion misinterpreted/wrong/false so he was ashamed and felt guilty and committed suicide. This is the correct argument.

reply

[–] Waldimore 10 years ago

I can't believe you would doubt his suicide. The injustice he has experienced is nothing short of grotesque. I cannot imagine how painful it is to become as disillusioned as he was.

How would you cope after seeing everything you believe in shattered through your effort to protect and uphold it?

Why would anyone want to kill him when the story was long out of his hands by the time it happened?

I agree with you. What did the CIA have to gain at this point? It was all out there and had been for a long time. And if you remember, there is a title card at the end of the movie which says that the media ignored the CIA report when released due to their obsessive interest in the Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal.

If you want conspiracy then focus on that and how often it happens that something important occurs, but is obscured by some silly pop culture story. Whenever there is one of those viral stories that the country is focused on, head to the back pages and discover the real news that no one is paying attention to.

It's easy to dwell on the idea of his death being a hit. Certainly possible. But I can relate to this man being disillusioned having lost everything, being on antidepressants didn't help, one of the side effects in some people is suicidal thoughts and they are hard as heck to get off of once you are on them. The fact that he was about to have to move in with his mother at 49, could not have been the easiest thing for an adult male to face in this situation. So, yeah, if he was hit, then it was simply a vindictive one. It's pretty much common knowledge now about the crack epidemic and in the black community, it was pretty well known even before he wrote his story. All his story did was give it a platform for legitimate discourse on the news and not on the block, where it had been passed around since the 80's.

reply

[–] arturo92376-572-519193 10 years ago

Unless you hold office, are appointed to a high bureaucratic post, or hold some sort of political power, you aren't running the government.

reply

[–] bektaskonca 10 years ago

if any IDIOT believes this person has taken the easy way out by killing himself is far beyond STUPID, any person endures so much to get simple truth when all odds were against him he has not taken the easy way he fought like there was tommorow, man like this would endure so much crap than take his own life , I DO NOT THINK SO.

reply

[–] SacredAvatar 10 years ago

He died in 2004 dumb ass.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RoseVioletDaisy 9 years ago

Anyone who would describe suicide as "the easy way out" is the stupid idiot. Some people only have so much fight in them and once they've run out, that's it. Or maybe he wasn't suffering depression when he worked on the story but did when he committed suicide.

reply

[–] SacredAvatar 10 years ago

Lol look at this idiot. He died in December 2004, long after the stuff you saw in the movie. If the government really wanted him dead, they should have killed him back in 96. The guy was depressed, he was broke, couldn't get a regular job, lost his home... he was treated like a pariah in the news community. Even the people closest to him, his own family, say it was a suicide. The gun, which have been reported to have a hair trigger, may have possibly dispelled 2 bullets.

Facts were very important to Gary apparently. You don't know the facts, so stfu.

reply

[–] owen-691-380910 10 years ago

True dat. He probably killed himself. But the Us government were (maybe) complicit in his death, because they (maybe) aided and abetted in trying to discredit him, which (maybe) lead to his eventual demise.

Whatever the truth regarding his death, the guy discovered an incredibly important story, which was already brushed under the carpet almost as soon as it was aired- Makes you wonder how many things like this went on and still go on....

Funny how all that H still gets exported out of Afghanistan, and harvests have steadily increased since the US lead invasion, would have fought that is something you could *beep* wit with air power... & What with the CIA's love of death squads (i.e. supporting/training/arming/funding them) throughout their engagement in south and central america and such you would think it would have been easier for the US to make at least a dent in the door of the 'war on drugs'... must be the money...

Gary Webb is a hero to me and I hope (and have little doubt) that his children know their father is a true hero. Its sad that we have very very few journalists with such passion and integrity now.

Anyway, and flippantly, its a good filum and, to me at least, its a more important story than All the President's Men. 7/10

reply

[–] umme4uke 10 years ago

The way the film portrayed it, to me, the CIA couldn't kill him until the heat was off them, following the Clinton Scandal. The suggestion I got from the end of this film is that the Clinton Scandal was a smokescreen.

reply

[–] mvljr 10 years ago

Totally agree

reply

[–] GusToby 10 years ago

Thanks for the spoiler - *beep*

reply

[–] MoonMANguy 10 years ago

No problem man. I don't think things end well for MLK in Selma either. Oh and I'm pretty sure Moses leads his people to safety in exodus. And Chris Kyle survives bro. (All movies I have not seen yet, but are all apart of a little something called history. You should do some reading)

reply

[–] joelreitzloff 10 years ago

the moral of the story is all humans are the same and all governments are the same, deep down inside. governments and countries are nothing but a form of tribalism which serves only to encourage conflict sooner or later. its in our dna. as told in 'the thin red line' in this world we are destroying ourselves just as fast as we can arrange it.

reply

[–] halomaniac88 10 years ago

damn right

reply