8 ms·

The New York Times has a long history of cooperating with three-letter agencies as a state mouthpiece. The irony of their publishing this article is delicious.

by dleslie 10y ago

DenisM 10y ago
Can you provide some sources? Thanks.
- metamicah 10y ago
  The NYT admits in this death notice for a spy that it was it manipulated by the CIA: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/us/austin-goodrich-spy-who-posed-as-journalist-dies-at-87.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/us/austin-goodrich-spy-who... In 1976 George HW Bush declared that the CIA wouldn't manipulate the media anymore but this NYT article from a couple months later shows the feds backpedaling on that promise, along with some specific examples of media manipulation from the time: http://www.nytimes.com/1976/04/27/archives/cia-will-keep-more-than-25-journalistagents-personnel-not-covered.html http://www.nytimes.com/1976/04/27/archives/cia-will-keep-mor... I haven't found any evidence of post-Cold War media manipulation of this sort, but I don't think American trust in the media has ever fully recovered since those days.
  - dleslie 10y ago
    Indeed. See also: Operation Mockingbird It's likely that the state agencies have learned to better avoid the exposure of these sorts of programs. Regardless, The Intercept has more than a few stories[0], and Chomsky has shared his opinion[1]. Then there's the small matter of this[2]. And on and on; much of it is hard to verify, like Eglin Air Force base and its Reddit links. 0: https://www.google.ca/search?q=site%3Atheintercept.com+new+york+times+propaganda&num=100&hl=en https://www.google.ca/search?q=site%3Atheintercept.com+new+y... 1: http://www.salon.com/2015/05/25/noam_chomsky_the_new_york_times_is_pure_proganda_partner/ http://www.salon.com/2015/05/25/noam_chomsky_the_new_york_ti... 2: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130715/11210223804/anti-propaganda-ban-repealed-freeing-state-dept-to-direct-its-broadcasting-arm-american-citizens.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130715/11210223804/anti-...
    - DenisM 10y ago
      Spreading propaganda is not the same as cooperation with the TLAs. If you read Chomsky in detail, he is describing exactly how this works, and it does not involve spies telling the NYT what to write. It's a lot more gentle. Seriously, if you're so keen to criticize the western media you might as well do it right. Chomsky wrote several books (E.g. Understanding Power) documenting and detailing how it works. Now, back to where we started. Where is your evidence specifically for "The New York Times has a long history of cooperating with three-letter agencies"?
      - dleslie 10y ago
        If we cannot agree that cooperating with TLAs on messaging is acting as a tool of propaganda, then I don't see the point in discussing further. Moreover, did you not see the links previously posted in this thread?
  - DenisM 10y ago
    > “in a few instances the organizations were aware of the C.I.A. connection, but most of them appear not to have been.” Really? This counts as "a long history of cooperating with three-letter agencies" in your book?
golergka 10y ago
Not as delicious as this comment.
tptacek 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
- laretluval 10y ago
  It's not just a matter of the moral equivalence of propaganda, but of credibility. When a major media outlet is pushing a narrative that supports a government agenda, skepticism is warranted.
  - berntb 10y ago
    We are not talking just "a government agenda" -- as far as I've seen, the whole democratic world (not only USA and Sweden) say something quite similar regarding Russian propaganda.
    - zigzigzag 10y ago
      How are you measuring what the "democratic world" says, exactly? What it's media says? Isn't Donald Trump making waves right now for having improbably high support despite thinking Putin is not so bad after all? Dumb though Trump may be he is without a doubt a key part of the "democratic world" right now.
      - berntb 10y ago
        1. Can you condemn Putin for starting wars and annexing area in Europe, just like Hitler in the 1930s? If you refuse I will assume that you work for the Russian junta. (To _only_ condemn USA instead is not an answer.) 2. My sources are e.g. what is said by common EU institutions and by state chiefs in the EU. Like here http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-eu-31932005 http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-eu-31932005 BBC is just part of the anti Russian global conspiracy..? (And you contradict that "the whole democratic world" is saying the same thing -- with what one of the newer populists (that isn't even elected yet) said about something else... Is that REALLY the only argument you have...?!) Edit: reformatted to make it clearer.
oxide 10y ago
every time Russia is mentioned on HN, folks just happen to want the narrative thread to be how unfairly persecuted Russia is by the western media.
- dleslie 10y ago
  It would be fair if the source of the allegations wasn't likewise tainted. Russia engages in propaganda, and this is abundantly obvious; it would be nice if those claiming such were forward and honest about their own ethical deviancies and the actions of their own state. It is tiresome to hear but one side of the concern from the media.
  - bobthechef 10y ago
    As Chomsky says, propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. The NYT is very much an American pro-establishment paper staffed by upper middle class ivy league graduates. If the NYT isn't intentionally slanting the news in its favor, then it is merely reflecting the slant that is rather uniform among its journalists and editors.
    - extra88 10y ago
      If it's not intentional, it's not propaganda.
- bobthechef 10y ago
  I have gotten the exact opposite impression. Maybe 25+ years ago when many Westerns on the hard left naively celebrated communism and the Soviet Union, but the only people who seem to sympathize with Russia are those on the alt-right who wish that the POTUS had the chutzpah of Putin when dealing with foreign adversaries.
  - tnones 10y ago
    The irony of using "alt-right" in this discussion is also delicious, considering it's turned into a pit for people to be thrown into by the media rather than a label for those who adopted it.
akjj 10y ago
Why is this ironic? I'm struggling to find a reasonable interpretation for this claim other than "The NY Times has been wrong about issues of spying and propaganda before, therefore it's not worth my time to consider the claims in this article, and I dismiss it completely." Which is a reasonable thing to believe. A little harsh in my opinion, but reasonable can disagree. However, it's definitely not ironic. Even if you believe that the NY Times is nothing more than an appendage of the US security establishment, then it's completely straightforward that the establishment would be trying to counteract the propaganda. It's certainly not ironic for the CIA to try to identify and stop foreign spies even as it itself uses spies, or that the military builds armor even as it also uses guns, is it? If you believe that the NY Times has an institutional position that propaganda is always and forever a legitimate tool of the government, then there's no contradiction if they also call out propaganda for the purpose of neutralizing it. If you believe that the NY Times is more or less a legitimate news organization that maybe has made mistakes in the past, then I think the article is newsworthy and relevant. I keep seeing discussion of Russian involvement in other countries' politics dismissed as ironic, which seems to just be a rhetorical trick to make it sound like there's a more sophisticated argument than just "I don't believe that source".
- dleslie 10y ago
  I did not dismiss the notion that Russia produces propaganda; Russia produces propaganda. Generally, I expect that those alleging wrong doing are not engaging in the same; and so it appears ironic when an exposed agent of state propaganda alleges that a state is engaging in propaganda. It's a, "well yes, and you would know" sort of humour. Let those without sin cast the first stones, and all that.
  - berntb 10y ago
    1. I am sorry, but you will have to settle for very light gray and very dark gray. Not black and white. 2. It is not just the media of US and Sweden -- most of the democratic world say the same thing. For most subjects, the democratic countries disagree.
    - 10y ago

The New York Times has a long history of cooperating with three-letter agencies as a state mouthpiece. The irony of their publishing this article is delicious.

by dleslie 10y ago

The New York Times has a long history of cooperating with three-letter agencies as a state mouthpiece. The irony of their publishing this article is delicious.

DenisM 10y ago

Can you provide some sources? Thanks.

metamicah 10y ago
The NYT admits in this death notice for a spy that it was it manipulated by the CIA: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/us/austin-goodrich-spy-who-posed-as-journalist-dies-at-87.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/us/austin-goodrich-spy-who... In 1976 George HW Bush declared that the CIA wouldn't manipulate the media anymore but this NYT article from a couple months later shows the feds backpedaling on that promise, along with some specific examples of media manipulation from the time: http://www.nytimes.com/1976/04/27/archives/cia-will-keep-more-than-25-journalistagents-personnel-not-covered.html http://www.nytimes.com/1976/04/27/archives/cia-will-keep-mor... I haven't found any evidence of post-Cold War media manipulation of this sort, but I don't think American trust in the media has ever fully recovered since those days.
- dleslie 10y ago
  Indeed. See also: Operation Mockingbird It's likely that the state agencies have learned to better avoid the exposure of these sorts of programs. Regardless, The Intercept has more than a few stories[0], and Chomsky has shared his opinion[1]. Then there's the small matter of this[2]. And on and on; much of it is hard to verify, like Eglin Air Force base and its Reddit links. 0: https://www.google.ca/search?q=site%3Atheintercept.com+new+york+times+propaganda&num=100&hl=en https://www.google.ca/search?q=site%3Atheintercept.com+new+y... 1: http://www.salon.com/2015/05/25/noam_chomsky_the_new_york_times_is_pure_proganda_partner/ http://www.salon.com/2015/05/25/noam_chomsky_the_new_york_ti... 2: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130715/11210223804/anti-propaganda-ban-repealed-freeing-state-dept-to-direct-its-broadcasting-arm-american-citizens.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130715/11210223804/anti-...
  - DenisM 10y ago
    Spreading propaganda is not the same as cooperation with the TLAs. If you read Chomsky in detail, he is describing exactly how this works, and it does not involve spies telling the NYT what to write. It's a lot more gentle. Seriously, if you're so keen to criticize the western media you might as well do it right. Chomsky wrote several books (E.g. Understanding Power) documenting and detailing how it works. Now, back to where we started. Where is your evidence specifically for "The New York Times has a long history of cooperating with three-letter agencies"?
    - dleslie 10y ago
      If we cannot agree that cooperating with TLAs on messaging is acting as a tool of propaganda, then I don't see the point in discussing further. Moreover, did you not see the links previously posted in this thread?
- DenisM 10y ago
  > “in a few instances the organizations were aware of the C.I.A. connection, but most of them appear not to have been.” Really? This counts as "a long history of cooperating with three-letter agencies" in your book?

golergka 10y ago

Not as delicious as this comment.

tptacek 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes

laretluval 10y ago
It's not just a matter of the moral equivalence of propaganda, but of credibility. When a major media outlet is pushing a narrative that supports a government agenda, skepticism is warranted.
- berntb 10y ago
  We are not talking just "a government agenda" -- as far as I've seen, the whole democratic world (not only USA and Sweden) say something quite similar regarding Russian propaganda.
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    How are you measuring what the "democratic world" says, exactly? What it's media says? Isn't Donald Trump making waves right now for having improbably high support despite thinking Putin is not so bad after all? Dumb though Trump may be he is without a doubt a key part of the "democratic world" right now.
    - berntb 10y ago
      1. Can you condemn Putin for starting wars and annexing area in Europe, just like Hitler in the 1930s? If you refuse I will assume that you work for the Russian junta. (To _only_ condemn USA instead is not an answer.) 2. My sources are e.g. what is said by common EU institutions and by state chiefs in the EU. Like here http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-eu-31932005 http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-eu-31932005 BBC is just part of the anti Russian global conspiracy..? (And you contradict that "the whole democratic world" is saying the same thing -- with what one of the newer populists (that isn't even elected yet) said about something else... Is that REALLY the only argument you have...?!) Edit: reformatted to make it clearer.

oxide 10y ago

every time Russia is mentioned on HN, folks just happen to want the narrative thread to be how unfairly persecuted Russia is by the western media.

dleslie 10y ago
It would be fair if the source of the allegations wasn't likewise tainted. Russia engages in propaganda, and this is abundantly obvious; it would be nice if those claiming such were forward and honest about their own ethical deviancies and the actions of their own state. It is tiresome to hear but one side of the concern from the media.
- bobthechef 10y ago
  As Chomsky says, propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. The NYT is very much an American pro-establishment paper staffed by upper middle class ivy league graduates. If the NYT isn't intentionally slanting the news in its favor, then it is merely reflecting the slant that is rather uniform among its journalists and editors.
  - extra88 10y ago
    If it's not intentional, it's not propaganda.
bobthechef 10y ago
I have gotten the exact opposite impression. Maybe 25+ years ago when many Westerns on the hard left naively celebrated communism and the Soviet Union, but the only people who seem to sympathize with Russia are those on the alt-right who wish that the POTUS had the chutzpah of Putin when dealing with foreign adversaries.
- tnones 10y ago
  The irony of using "alt-right" in this discussion is also delicious, considering it's turned into a pit for people to be thrown into by the media rather than a label for those who adopted it.

akjj 10y ago

Why is this ironic? I'm struggling to find a reasonable interpretation for this claim other than "The NY Times has been wrong about issues of spying and propaganda before, therefore it's not worth my time to consider the claims in this article, and I dismiss it completely." Which is a reasonable thing to believe. A little harsh in my opinion, but reasonable can disagree. However, it's definitely not ironic. Even if you believe that the NY Times is nothing more than an appendage of the US security establishment, then it's completely straightforward that the establishment would be trying to counteract the propaganda. It's certainly not ironic for the CIA to try to identify and stop foreign spies even as it itself uses spies, or that the military builds armor even as it also uses guns, is it? If you believe that the NY Times has an institutional position that propaganda is always and forever a legitimate tool of the government, then there's no contradiction if they also call out propaganda for the purpose of neutralizing it. If you believe that the NY Times is more or less a legitimate news organization that maybe has made mistakes in the past, then I think the article is newsworthy and relevant. I keep seeing discussion of Russian involvement in other countries' politics dismissed as ironic, which seems to just be a rhetorical trick to make it sound like there's a more sophisticated argument than just "I don't believe that source".

dleslie 10y ago
I did not dismiss the notion that Russia produces propaganda; Russia produces propaganda. Generally, I expect that those alleging wrong doing are not engaging in the same; and so it appears ironic when an exposed agent of state propaganda alleges that a state is engaging in propaganda. It's a, "well yes, and you would know" sort of humour. Let those without sin cast the first stones, and all that.
- berntb 10y ago
  1. I am sorry, but you will have to settle for very light gray and very dark gray. Not black and white. 2. It is not just the media of US and Sweden -- most of the democratic world say the same thing. For most subjects, the democratic countries disagree.
  - 10y ago