3 ms·
"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",
by 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 agoAny 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 agoHow 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 agoI 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.
- defen 7y agoMy point is that any time an "anonymous government official" or "high level intelligence official" or whatever leaks something to the prestige press - meaning, the article says "according to anonymous government sources..." - AND the leaker is not jailed / prosecuted, THEN you have to assume that the leak was deliberate (approved at a high level) and in service of the intelligence agency's own ends.