I think it's like Chinese writers who have to pay careful tribute to the official story, while managing to slip in subtle questions.

If the Courant came right out and said "Sandy Hook was staged" or "Sandy Hook is a coverup," no one would take them seriously as a newspaper. It's too much for readers to handle--the truth has to be approached very subtly.

The fact that someone is approaching it at all is, to me, remarkable. There is enormous opposition to questioning the official story, and hardly any support whatsoever; the Courant writers could easily be James-Tracied into oblivion, fired, scapegoated. But instead, the editor is standing behind them and allowing them to continue publishing articles critical of the state government's position and actions. So, I'm not offended by how much of the Courant articles pay tribute to the official story; unless they come right out and say "we doubt the official story," they have to go with it until it's overturned. I really think the Courant is helping to overturn it.