4 ms·
Blatant censorship tends to call attention to things and reveal to people that their perceptions are being manipulated. It's much subtler and more effective to
by AndrewBissell 6y ago
Blatant censorship tends to call attention to things and reveal to people that their perceptions are being manipulated. It's much subtler and more effective to exercise editorial control over nominally "independent" media by firing reporters pushing stories about inconvenient truths, which Allen Dulles used to do by simply calling up the heads of major newspapers.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoBut inconvenient truths come out all the time, don't they? If the CIA had the power to keep stories they don't like out of the national conversation, they surely would have used on the Snowden leaks or Abu Ghraib.
- AndrewBissell 6y agoI don't think they have the power to exercise total control or prevent (much of) the truth from eventually coming out, in particular now that alternative sources have become more widespread. Again it's a balancing act -- mixing some of these things into the mainstream sources which are meant to be trusted helps to lend them credibility, and there seems to have been no serious repercussions to any programs or the players involved from the Snowden or Abu Ghraib leaks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout
- neves 6y agoRead Greenwald book to know how many big news organizations refuse to publish Snowden leaks.
- viro 6y agoGreenwald has really hurt his credibility in recent years.
- AnthonyMouse 6y agoGreenwald has continued to cover both US political parties critically. In an era of hyper-partisanship, anyone not choosing a tribe and remaining loyal to it is treated as a pariah by those who do, but it's the latter group who have lost their credibility.
- godelski 6y agoI think the Snowden case is actually a good point. When we look at how officials responded they shifted the conversation to metadata to downplay the amount of information and what that information could be used for. It does seem like their responses were fairly effective since people don't consider metadata particularly useful. But also a large amount of people don't even know who Snowden is and opinions on him are quite divided (and there are radicals with ridiculous opinions on both sides that often take the spotlight). I don't think people seriously talking about this think the government has an all seeing power or a hand in everything (I personally don't think even China does). So it would not be expected that the CIA/NSA or any agency could prevent a story like that from eventually breaking. But the question is how effective are they at being able to downplay it and sway public opinion? Personally I see it as subtle and frequent nudging more than active control.
- AndrewBissell 6y agoCompare the way media covered the Snowden leaks vs the Vault 7 ones. The Vault 7 leaks basically show that as soon as you're a person of sufficient interest to the state, tools like Signal and Tor (for which Snowden is probably the highest profile proponent) are at best useless, and at worst might just paint a target on your back. But hardly anyone has ever heard of them.
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoRussian government has the same power in regards to VKontakte, Yandex, etc. However it does not really stop stories spreading. What they have realised recently, is that injecting misinformation, even if it's outrageous bullshit, is far more effective. Coming back to the West: Snowden and Assange are still pariahs, Assange is remembered by the public as a rapist escaping justice rather than for wikileaks. Id say the strategy is working.
- VintageCool 6y agoI think that Assange is best known for WikiLeaks, but WikiLeaks is now a pariah after the 2016 US election.