7 ms·

The simplest explanation for lots of confusing events is that the intelligence agencies have enjoyed supremacy over the government for some time already. They r

The simplest explanation for lots of confusing events is that the intelligence agencies have enjoyed supremacy over the government for some time already. They run the media as well: just look at the glowing plaudits for their fake "whistleblower" as contrasted with the ongoing disdain for actual whistleblowers.

shadowgovt 7y ago
That's not nearly as simple as the explanation that the public doesn't actually care about whether domestic agencies are spying on everyone. I think most Americans are in the "I have nothing to hide" line of thinking. The media won't carry a story that their numbers tell them doesn't have legs with the audience.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Forget the public, why don't elected officials themselves act more in simple self-interest? Not all of them are bankrolled by the military-industrial complex, yet not a one ever utters a peep about the trillions we spend on evil security-theater bullshit. No, killing lots of people in the Middle East does not make us safer, which anyone on any of the relevant Congressional committees could tell you. Most of them would be happy to spend those trillions on other priorities. None of them, with the partial exception of e.g. Rep. Gabbard, ever say a thing about this. Why is that?
  - playeren 7y ago
    I would guess that people in general are fearful of reprecussions when the antagonists are 'better connected', 'higher ranked' or 'richer'. Often the scariest threats are those implied.
    - fsagx 7y ago
      In a moment of accidental candor on Maddow's show, Senator Schumer lets you know who he thinks really runs DC... "Let me tell you: You take on the intellegence community and they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QbADuhhu7w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QbADuhhu7w
      - playeren 7y ago
        The possibility of a secret police state scares me more than any bombs or shootings ever could. It is absolutely an existential threat to freedom, because as part of its nature, it is able to quell dissent, and largely control the flow of information "in the name of freedom". Hypothetically, of course.
  - InvaderFizz 7y ago
    There are plenty that do. They end up making waves in the libertarian and conspiracy communities and are generally blacklisted by the mainstream press. The two communities above are receptive to messages about government overreach and corruption, the general public seems not to care much. I suspect this is largely because libertarians and conspiracy theorists (which do overlap to some extent) are already skeptical of government "goodness" and anything that feeds that skepticism is easily accepted. The general public places government on a higher moral plane of existence and any challenge to that is met with skepticism and excuses. The end result is that those that speak out/expose the government are sidelined and punished through smears or government action. See: Attacks on Gabbard, Ron Paul, Snowden, Bill Binney, Assange, etc. It always fascinated me that the discussion of the leaked Clinton emails conveniently focused on the speculative source and motivation, never on the content of the emails with valid DKIM signatures. There is literally no question that those emails are real and unaltered.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      > It always fascinated me that the discussion of the leaked Clinton emails conveniently focused on the speculative source and motivation, never on the content of the emails with valid DKIM signatures Because there was nothing in them that painted Clinton in a bad light. They were normal boring emails that were sensationalized in conspiracy blogs but recognized as normal boring emails by professional journalists.
      - drak0n1c 7y ago
        There were multiple emails from journalists at supposedly neutral reputable outlets asking the campaign to check and edit their articles before publishing. Also in an email Donna Brazile of CNN agreed to forward the debate questions to the campaign before the debate. If the act of leaking emails about media collusion is a "bad" thing that influenced the election in one way, so can the media collusion itself be a "bad" thing that influenced the election the other way.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
duxup 7y ago
Intelligence agencies "run the media"? How so?
- puranjay 7y ago
  Nothing totally proven but you might find this interesting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
- defen 7y ago
  "Run the media" in this context doesn't mean there's some CIA commissar approving every article or broadcast. What it means generally is that access to "leaks", scoops, "anonymous government sources", "high level intelligence officials", etc is predicated on uncritically toeing the "intelligence community" line. Failing to do so means no more access, and you will be replaced by someone else. Take the lessons of Manufacturing Consent and apply them to the contemporary political context instead of Vietnam and East Timor, even if the elite media seems to be aligned with your own political beliefs.
  - duxup 7y ago
    Any leaker is going to have their POV and motivations. But I don't see any reason to belive that it constitutes 'controlling the media'.
    - defen 7y ago
      How could you be a member of any standing in the elite media if you don't have access to "leaks"? If something leaks that wasn't actually approved by the agencies, what do you think is going to happen to the leaker?
      - duxup 7y ago
        I don't know what you mean by the first question. As for the second I'm not sure what you feel the answer is there either, more what it means. There is a whole history of folks leaking things for you to look at.
patentatt 7y ago
“Fake” whistleblower? This is a hop and a skip away from Q-anon territory, and shouldn’t be on hn.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Real whistleblowers: Snowden, Kiriakou, Binney, Drake, Manning, Winner. Notice a theme of career loss, prison, total life upheaval, and a press that DGAF. Fake whistleblower: still works for CIA, whistleblowing has purely political rather than administrative effects, and ongoing adulation in the press. If you don't want to see this on HN, then downvote and move on.
  - streb-lo 7y ago
    Well we could strive for a base level of critical thinking, something clearly missing from your statement. A whistleblower that is heavily covered in the media because he or she aligns with the orginization's goals (sell headlines) is not 'fake'. A whistleblower blowing the whistle on a hierarchy unable to directly fire him will also, not surprisingly, not lose his job.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      ...heavily covered in the media because he or she aligns with the orginization's goals (sell headlines) is not 'fake'. "Heavily covered in the media", that's an interesting criterion for "whistleblower", and I'm sure it would serve someone's interests if it got any traction. Also "critical thinking" is now defined as "believing what the war media tell us"? This would be Orwellian, if it weren't so silly.
      - sjwright 7y ago
        You are misrepresenting what was said. "Heavily covered in the media" wasn’t cited as a criterion for a whistleblower. Actually to be more precise, it was cited as a criterion—by you—when you claimed that as a hallmark of “fake” whistleblowers.
Jeema101 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
jammygit 7y ago
Is there really anything simple about “running the media”?

shadowgovt 7y ago

That's not nearly as simple as the explanation that the public doesn't actually care about whether domestic agencies are spying on everyone. I think most Americans are in the "I have nothing to hide" line of thinking. The media won't carry a story that their numbers tell them doesn't have legs with the audience.

jessaustin 7y ago
Forget the public, why don't elected officials themselves act more in simple self-interest? Not all of them are bankrolled by the military-industrial complex, yet not a one ever utters a peep about the trillions we spend on evil security-theater bullshit. No, killing lots of people in the Middle East does not make us safer, which anyone on any of the relevant Congressional committees could tell you. Most of them would be happy to spend those trillions on other priorities. None of them, with the partial exception of e.g. Rep. Gabbard, ever say a thing about this. Why is that?
- playeren 7y ago
  I would guess that people in general are fearful of reprecussions when the antagonists are 'better connected', 'higher ranked' or 'richer'. Often the scariest threats are those implied.
  - fsagx 7y ago
    In a moment of accidental candor on Maddow's show, Senator Schumer lets you know who he thinks really runs DC... "Let me tell you: You take on the intellegence community and they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QbADuhhu7w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QbADuhhu7w
    - playeren 7y ago
      The possibility of a secret police state scares me more than any bombs or shootings ever could. It is absolutely an existential threat to freedom, because as part of its nature, it is able to quell dissent, and largely control the flow of information "in the name of freedom". Hypothetically, of course.
- InvaderFizz 7y ago
  There are plenty that do. They end up making waves in the libertarian and conspiracy communities and are generally blacklisted by the mainstream press. The two communities above are receptive to messages about government overreach and corruption, the general public seems not to care much. I suspect this is largely because libertarians and conspiracy theorists (which do overlap to some extent) are already skeptical of government "goodness" and anything that feeds that skepticism is easily accepted. The general public places government on a higher moral plane of existence and any challenge to that is met with skepticism and excuses. The end result is that those that speak out/expose the government are sidelined and punished through smears or government action. See: Attacks on Gabbard, Ron Paul, Snowden, Bill Binney, Assange, etc. It always fascinated me that the discussion of the leaked Clinton emails conveniently focused on the speculative source and motivation, never on the content of the emails with valid DKIM signatures. There is literally no question that those emails are real and unaltered.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > It always fascinated me that the discussion of the leaked Clinton emails conveniently focused on the speculative source and motivation, never on the content of the emails with valid DKIM signatures Because there was nothing in them that painted Clinton in a bad light. They were normal boring emails that were sensationalized in conspiracy blogs but recognized as normal boring emails by professional journalists.
    - drak0n1c 7y ago
      There were multiple emails from journalists at supposedly neutral reputable outlets asking the campaign to check and edit their articles before publishing. Also in an email Donna Brazile of CNN agreed to forward the debate questions to the campaign before the debate. If the act of leaking emails about media collusion is a "bad" thing that influenced the election in one way, so can the media collusion itself be a "bad" thing that influenced the election the other way.
      - shadowgovt 7y ago

duxup 7y ago

Intelligence agencies "run the media"? How so?

puranjay 7y ago
Nothing totally proven but you might find this interesting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
defen 7y ago
"Run the media" in this context doesn't mean there's some CIA commissar approving every article or broadcast. What it means generally is that access to "leaks", scoops, "anonymous government sources", "high level intelligence officials", etc is predicated on uncritically toeing the "intelligence community" line. Failing to do so means no more access, and you will be replaced by someone else. Take the lessons of Manufacturing Consent and apply them to the contemporary political context instead of Vietnam and East Timor, even if the elite media seems to be aligned with your own political beliefs.
- duxup 7y ago
  Any leaker is going to have their POV and motivations. But I don't see any reason to belive that it constitutes 'controlling the media'.
  - defen 7y ago
    How could you be a member of any standing in the elite media if you don't have access to "leaks"? If something leaks that wasn't actually approved by the agencies, what do you think is going to happen to the leaker?
    - duxup 7y ago
      I don't know what you mean by the first question. As for the second I'm not sure what you feel the answer is there either, more what it means. There is a whole history of folks leaking things for you to look at.

patentatt 7y ago

“Fake” whistleblower? This is a hop and a skip away from Q-anon territory, and shouldn’t be on hn.

jessaustin 7y ago
Real whistleblowers: Snowden, Kiriakou, Binney, Drake, Manning, Winner. Notice a theme of career loss, prison, total life upheaval, and a press that DGAF. Fake whistleblower: still works for CIA, whistleblowing has purely political rather than administrative effects, and ongoing adulation in the press. If you don't want to see this on HN, then downvote and move on.
- streb-lo 7y ago
  Well we could strive for a base level of critical thinking, something clearly missing from your statement. A whistleblower that is heavily covered in the media because he or she aligns with the orginization's goals (sell headlines) is not 'fake'. A whistleblower blowing the whistle on a hierarchy unable to directly fire him will also, not surprisingly, not lose his job.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    ...heavily covered in the media because he or she aligns with the orginization's goals (sell headlines) is not 'fake'. "Heavily covered in the media", that's an interesting criterion for "whistleblower", and I'm sure it would serve someone's interests if it got any traction. Also "critical thinking" is now defined as "believing what the war media tell us"? This would be Orwellian, if it weren't so silly.
    - sjwright 7y ago
      You are misrepresenting what was said. "Heavily covered in the media" wasn’t cited as a criterion for a whistleblower. Actually to be more precise, it was cited as a criterion—by you—when you claimed that as a hallmark of “fake” whistleblowers.

Jeema101 7y ago

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

jammygit 7y ago

Is there really anything simple about “running the media”?