4 ms·

[citation needed] - the government has paid newspapers to run stories that were not advertisements? Paid for logistics for reporters? Paid for placement? Bribe

[citation needed] - the government has paid newspapers to run stories that were not advertisements? Paid for logistics for reporters? Paid for placement? Bribed? Care to clarify?

ProAm 9y ago
I tried to find the specific article that mentioned it but could only find ones that were vaguely similar [1] The gist of what I can remember is that the government (and entities like the CIA, FBI) would pay to push certain stories, sometimes submit editorials that would be printed regardless, etc... Usually to build support for foreign policy (push that the middle easy was bad, China evil, communist Russia bad), etc... mostly propaganda-ish content to slowly sway US citizens mindset. I wish I could find the article, I believe it was between 7-10 years ago... Sort of similar to this as well [2] (very hard to search for 'government pays NY Times, Post WSJ' or 'Pentagon articles in newspaper' etc.... So many results that are not related in whatever search bubble google has me in [1] http://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/26/archives/worldwide-propaganda-network-built-by-the-cia-a-worldwide-network.html http://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/26/archives/worldwide-propaga... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  What you suggested in your previous post is incorrect. You wouldn't have trouble googling it if it were true and known. Maybe you are confusing it with this change to the law in 2013: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-domestic-propaganda-officially-aired-2013-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/us-domestic-propaganda-offici... The closest thing to what you suggest (and it is not that close) is probably Judith Miller's Iraq reporting for the NY Times, but that's mostly down to her incompetence.
  - ProAm 9y ago
    > You wouldn't have trouble googling it if it were true and known I disagree, or maybe Im just poor at searching but terms like "NY Times, government, paying, publish, stories, CIA" I get so much non-relevant search returns its impossible to separate the whet from the chafe. It was also many years ago, so Im sure search bubbles these days will tend to return stories that are newer as a default. The story I am remembering is definitely different from the one you recommended. I wish I could find it, it was a fascinating read at the time.
- barrkel 9y ago
  Foreign Policy is more a matter of experts funded by agencies and think tanks (more political again) trying to shift the debate in the community. Not sure it's of major relevance right now, when Trump does stuff that is not the common wisdom of the FP crowd, but normal behaviour should resume sooner or later.
opportune 9y ago
Basically by being extremely cozy with reporters. Reporters who report on government happenings build contacts with people in government for leads. of course there is a quid pro quo in that the person helping them has their own motives, either on an individual (e.g. political) or government level. If your government buddy in the State Dept. (who may himself just be a CIA agent) essentially does a lot of the "investigative work" on a major story for you by serving it on a platter, and there's an implied understanding that reporting against your buddy's narrative would end future help from the buddy, you're going to do write what he wants.
- vevoo 9y ago
  Well, you just backed from your initial saying "pay". That was a great concern, being "cozy", etc. is not so.
  - kgwgk 9y ago
    Note that these are two different people.
  - austinjp 9y ago
    Why is cozy less of a concern? If you're in with the in crowd, you go places. That might mean socially and professionally. Both of these have financial implications, if finance is your main concern.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - smcl 9y ago
      Cozy/informal incentives may be even more sinister. At least monetary payments have a hope of being tracked or spotted by someone. A wink-and-a-nod that in the future you'll get some juicy scoop or could land a cushy job somewhere else through a mutual contact if you run some story is pretty hard to spot.
  - coldtea 9y ago
indubitable 9y ago
There are lots of good examples here. One of the one's that's more entertaining is the CIA's role in popularizing modern art [1]. Modern art's reception was unnatural and driven largely by propaganda. The CIA saw it as an effective weapon in the propaganda war against the Soviet Union. It was supposed to emphasize the creativity capitalism and the free markets enable contrasted against the rigid conformity and authoritarianism of communism and state controlled markets. Finally, Rothko explained! Quoting the article, "Dismayed at the appeal communism still had for many intellectuals and artists in the West, the [CIA] set up a division, the Propaganda Assets Inventory, which at its peak could influence more than 800 newspapers, magazines and public information organisations. They joked that it was like a Wurlitzer jukebox: when the CIA pushed a button it could hear whatever tune it wanted playing across the world.". This played in synergistically with the Congress for Cultural Freedom [2] which was another government organization acting like an independent organization, but was just a CIA propaganda tool. Anyhow, this stuff takes decades to be declassified. It should be interesting seeing things like what was happening behind the scenes to build up the Iraq war. The ironic thing is by the time that's declassified - probably in the 2040s - people will think that it happened so long ago that it's no longer relevant to their issues of the day. Of course it is, and will be -- perhaps even moreso than today. As the apparent desire for governments to gain ever greater control and ever greater power -- mingling with media (in the general sense -- not just news) in covert ways will be ever more part and parcel of our brave new world. [1] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_for_Cultural_Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_for_Cultural_Freedom
e12e 9y ago
> Paid for logistics for reporters? See "embedded war correspondents" from anything after Vietnam. Iraq 1 is probably still the war machine's most spectacular TV production.
nathancahill 9y ago
Highly recommend reading Manufacturing Consent: https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499 https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Econo...
gm-conspiracy 9y ago
The government has paid TV networks to promote a specific "viewpoint" in non-news TV shows: https://www.salon.com/2001/06/30/ondcp_4/ https://www.salon.com/2001/06/30/ondcp_4/

[citation needed] - the government has paid newspapers to run stories that were not advertisements? Paid for logistics for reporters? Paid for placement? Bribed? Care to clarify?

ProAm 9y ago

I tried to find the specific article that mentioned it but could only find ones that were vaguely similar [1] The gist of what I can remember is that the government (and entities like the CIA, FBI) would pay to push certain stories, sometimes submit editorials that would be printed regardless, etc... Usually to build support for foreign policy (push that the middle easy was bad, China evil, communist Russia bad), etc... mostly propaganda-ish content to slowly sway US citizens mindset. I wish I could find the article, I believe it was between 7-10 years ago... Sort of similar to this as well [2] (very hard to search for 'government pays NY Times, Post WSJ' or 'Pentagon articles in newspaper' etc.... So many results that are not related in whatever search bubble google has me in [1] http://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/26/archives/worldwide-propaganda-network-built-by-the-cia-a-worldwide-network.html http://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/26/archives/worldwide-propaga... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html

WillPostForFood 9y ago
What you suggested in your previous post is incorrect. You wouldn't have trouble googling it if it were true and known. Maybe you are confusing it with this change to the law in 2013: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-domestic-propaganda-officially-aired-2013-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/us-domestic-propaganda-offici... The closest thing to what you suggest (and it is not that close) is probably Judith Miller's Iraq reporting for the NY Times, but that's mostly down to her incompetence.
- ProAm 9y ago
  > You wouldn't have trouble googling it if it were true and known I disagree, or maybe Im just poor at searching but terms like "NY Times, government, paying, publish, stories, CIA" I get so much non-relevant search returns its impossible to separate the whet from the chafe. It was also many years ago, so Im sure search bubbles these days will tend to return stories that are newer as a default. The story I am remembering is definitely different from the one you recommended. I wish I could find it, it was a fascinating read at the time.
barrkel 9y ago
Foreign Policy is more a matter of experts funded by agencies and think tanks (more political again) trying to shift the debate in the community. Not sure it's of major relevance right now, when Trump does stuff that is not the common wisdom of the FP crowd, but normal behaviour should resume sooner or later.

opportune 9y ago

Basically by being extremely cozy with reporters. Reporters who report on government happenings build contacts with people in government for leads. of course there is a quid pro quo in that the person helping them has their own motives, either on an individual (e.g. political) or government level. If your government buddy in the State Dept. (who may himself just be a CIA agent) essentially does a lot of the "investigative work" on a major story for you by serving it on a platter, and there's an implied understanding that reporting against your buddy's narrative would end future help from the buddy, you're going to do write what he wants.

vevoo 9y ago
Well, you just backed from your initial saying "pay". That was a great concern, being "cozy", etc. is not so.
- kgwgk 9y ago
  Note that these are two different people.
- austinjp 9y ago
  Why is cozy less of a concern? If you're in with the in crowd, you go places. That might mean socially and professionally. Both of these have financial implications, if finance is your main concern.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - smcl 9y ago
    Cozy/informal incentives may be even more sinister. At least monetary payments have a hope of being tracked or spotted by someone. A wink-and-a-nod that in the future you'll get some juicy scoop or could land a cushy job somewhere else through a mutual contact if you run some story is pretty hard to spot.
- coldtea 9y ago

indubitable 9y ago

There are lots of good examples here. One of the one's that's more entertaining is the CIA's role in popularizing modern art [1]. Modern art's reception was unnatural and driven largely by propaganda. The CIA saw it as an effective weapon in the propaganda war against the Soviet Union. It was supposed to emphasize the creativity capitalism and the free markets enable contrasted against the rigid conformity and authoritarianism of communism and state controlled markets. Finally, Rothko explained! Quoting the article, "Dismayed at the appeal communism still had for many intellectuals and artists in the West, the [CIA] set up a division, the Propaganda Assets Inventory, which at its peak could influence more than 800 newspapers, magazines and public information organisations. They joked that it was like a Wurlitzer jukebox: when the CIA pushed a button it could hear whatever tune it wanted playing across the world.". This played in synergistically with the Congress for Cultural Freedom [2] which was another government organization acting like an independent organization, but was just a CIA propaganda tool. Anyhow, this stuff takes decades to be declassified. It should be interesting seeing things like what was happening behind the scenes to build up the Iraq war. The ironic thing is by the time that's declassified - probably in the 2040s - people will think that it happened so long ago that it's no longer relevant to their issues of the day. Of course it is, and will be -- perhaps even moreso than today. As the apparent desire for governments to gain ever greater control and ever greater power -- mingling with media (in the general sense -- not just news) in covert ways will be ever more part and parcel of our brave new world. [1] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_for_Cultural_Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_for_Cultural_Freedom

e12e 9y ago

> Paid for logistics for reporters? See "embedded war correspondents" from anything after Vietnam. Iraq 1 is probably still the war machine's most spectacular TV production.

nathancahill 9y ago

Highly recommend reading Manufacturing Consent: https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499 https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Econo...

gm-conspiracy 9y ago

The government has paid TV networks to promote a specific "viewpoint" in non-news TV shows: https://www.salon.com/2001/06/30/ondcp_4/ https://www.salon.com/2001/06/30/ondcp_4/