4 ms·

"Nevermind the fact the only reason they think it's true is because I told them it's true." Is that really the only reason? Could things such as major networks

by MikeUt 6y ago

"Nevermind the fact the only reason they think it's true is because I told them it's true." Is that really the only reason? Could things such as major networks hiring ex-CIA personnel [1] contribute to that impression? Or maybe Reuters and the BBC acting as an arm of the UK foreign office [2]? Edit: And of course the article itself cites some compelling reasons in the very next paragraph. [1] https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/23/cnn-msnbc-15-spooks-mccabe/ https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/23/cnn-msnbc-15-spooks-mccab... [2] https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-office-russian-media/ https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-of...

Traster 6y ago
You're making my point for me. You say "How can you trust these people! They're hiring people who used to work for the CIA!", I say "If I want accurate reporting about the intelligence community, I probably want to have some qualified perspectives". It doesn't mean you have to accept their party line. but if your argument is that CNN shouldn't be hiring people who've worked in the intelligence community, you're arguing for CNN to do a bad job. Your second citation is pretty funny, are you really telling me Americans don't trust their media because the UK FCO sponsored pro free media content in Russia?
- MikeUt 6y ago
  I'm sure if Russia was covertly training journalists in the US to produce an “attitudinal change in the participants,” promoting a “positive impact” on their “perception of Russia.” and CNN was full of ex Russian FSB agents, you'd also see it as completely benign.
  - Traster 6y ago
    You think that CNN being full of ex-Russian agents is the same thing as CNN having former CIA people?
    - MikeUt 6y ago
      With the exception that they're promoting US instead of Russian interests, yes. A glance at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Central_Intelligence_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Central_Intelli... should dispel any delusions of CIA trustworthiness.
      - Traster 6y ago
        That's a hell of an exception.

by MikeUt 6y ago

Traster 6y ago

You're making my point for me. You say "How can you trust these people! They're hiring people who used to work for the CIA!", I say "If I want accurate reporting about the intelligence community, I probably want to have some qualified perspectives". It doesn't mean you have to accept their party line. but if your argument is that CNN shouldn't be hiring people who've worked in the intelligence community, you're arguing for CNN to do a bad job. Your second citation is pretty funny, are you really telling me Americans don't trust their media because the UK FCO sponsored pro free media content in Russia?

MikeUt 6y ago
I'm sure if Russia was covertly training journalists in the US to produce an “attitudinal change in the participants,” promoting a “positive impact” on their “perception of Russia.” and CNN was full of ex Russian FSB agents, you'd also see it as completely benign.
- Traster 6y ago
  You think that CNN being full of ex-Russian agents is the same thing as CNN having former CIA people?
  - MikeUt 6y ago
    With the exception that they're promoting US instead of Russian interests, yes. A glance at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Central_Intelligence_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Central_Intelli... should dispel any delusions of CIA trustworthiness.
    - Traster 6y ago
      That's a hell of an exception.