16 ms·

The CIA and the Media (1977)

276 points by 1cvmask 5y ago

atentaten 5y ago
The Secret CIA Campaign to Influence Culture: Covert Cultural Operations (2000) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdLB5l2wN3o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdLB5l2wN3o Watch or read Frances Stonor Saunders for some insights on how this works.
- disk0 5y ago
  Some more recent academic work on the CCC recently started reading—The CIA and the Congress for Cultural Freedom in the Early Cold War: Strange Bedfellows, Routledge [2016] Partial summary from libgen description: >This book calls into question the conventional wisdom about one of the most controversial episodes in the Cold War, and tells the story of the CIA's backing of the Congress for Cultural Freedom. >For nearly two decades of the early Cold War, the CIA secretly sponsored some of the world’s most feted writers, philosophers, and scientists as part of a campaign to stop Communism from regaining a foothold in western Europe and Asia. By backing the Congress for Cultural Freedom, the CIA subsidized dozens of prominent magazines, global congresses, annual seminars, and artistic festivals. When this operation―QKOPERA―became public in 1967, it ignited one of the most damaging scandals in CIA history. Ever since, the prevailing assumption has been that the CIA, as the Congress’s paymaster, manipulated a generation of intellectuals into lending their names to pro-American, anti-Communist ideas in exchange for prestigious bylines and plentiful grants. Even today, a cloud hangs over the reputations of many of the intellectuals associated with the Congress. >This book tells the story of how a small but determined group of anti-Communist intellectuals in America and Western Europe banded together to fight the Soviet Union’s cultural offensive. They enlisted one of the CIA’s earliest recruits to their cause―and they persuaded the CIA to foot their bill with virtually no strings attached. The CIA became a bureaucratic behemoth with an outsized influence on American foreign policy, but it began as a disorganized and unconventional outfit desperate to make inroads on all fronts against a foe many believed would ignite a nuclear war by 1954. When Michael Josselson, a recruit from the CIA’s Berlin office, pitched a proposal for what became the Congress for Cultural Freedom, senior officials were thus willing to gamble $50,000 on the venture. And when the Congress proved effective in enlisting some of the twentieth century’s most prominent intellectuals, senior CIA officials championed QKOPERA as the centerpiece of the Agency’s efforts to woo the non-Communist left.
boredumb 5y ago
Mock (yeah) ing (yeah) bird (yeah) Yeah, yeah Mockingbird
bediger4000 5y ago
If we take Bernstein at his word (and there's no reason not to), basically all the US media has secretly cooperated with the CIA. Is there any reason to think this isn't going on right now? I mean, google "ken dilanian cia" for a good time. Then think: Dilanian is still a working journalist. How is this congruent with a free press? Surely this willingness to cooperate with a spy agency that has done some very bad things over the years spills over to other areas. Am I supposed to believe that all these media cover current politics objectively, if they've enthusiastically cooperated with the CIA in the past?
- adolph 5y ago
  > Am I supposed to believe that all these media cover current politics objectively, if they've enthusiastically cooperated with the CIA in the past? Yes, that would be the point. Maybe more to the point: if you don't believe, you should believe the CIA has the power to make belief in other people. Moreover if you express non-belief you will be labeled a conspiracy theorist by society and shunned.
  - Aperocky 5y ago
    > Am I supposed to believe that all these media cover current politics objectively LOL I don't need this article to tell me that, it's so blatantly obvious.
    - bediger4000 5y ago
      Yeah, me too, really. The media have a fairly conservative bias, despite all the Republican claims of "liberal bias". I thought this conservative bias came from media trying to keep Republicans from claiming "liberal bias", but now I'm wondering if the CIA has something to do with it.
      - colpabar 5y ago
        > The media have a fairly conservative bias Can you explain what you mean by this, with some examples?
blakesterz 5y ago
This is from 1977 "His 25,000-word cover story, published in Rolling Stone on October 20, 1977, is reprinted below."
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
1cvmask 5y ago
Good indicative piece in the article: Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune. By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.
markus_zhang 5y ago
One thing I realized about the media is that there is ALWAYS forces behind to manipulate the view. In the best case when journalists are simple individuals, their view of the world still create sort of biases. From that perspective, nothing is objective and everything is subjective. This might be an extreme view but I do believe it's a good mental antidote.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  It seems like you are making two points here. That the view is manipulated by forces behind the scenes and that the view is subjective. Yes. All humans who write words down taint them with their own subjective view. This does not mean that we are powerless though. Reporting can be improved by fact checking, editing, and other means. We can also use technology to make sure that the color of chosen words does not prime the reader. This does not imply manipulation or behind the scenes manipulation. My own opinion: Media bias is a boogeyman. If somebody needs to be flatly told what is or isn't biased or if some source is left or right leaning then they are a dimwit. Even asking for unbiased information shows stupidity- it does not exist in an absolute sense. I agree with you that you should start from a frame of mind that the media is biased because it is. Embrace it. There seems to be a push to therefore reject all news media which is a scary thought. The press is the only private entity specifically mentioned in the US Constitution. It is often called the 4th branch of government because of the oversight that it provides.
h2odragon 5y ago
This is still only for the foreign stuff tho, right? For Domestic Propaganda they consult the FBI. I can certainly see a reporter having no issue with hearing about things the government would like to know before doing a trip someplace, that they want to know might be newsworthy itself. Not disclosing the connection is where the ethical alligators lie.
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  This is the intention, but history has shown this to be false.
photochemsyn 5y ago
That's a very interesting article with a lot of relevance for today's American media world, which also seems to have a very intertwined relationship with the various intelligence agencies (16 or so) of the US government. One case that stands out today is that of the Washington Post and its editorial/journalistic direction since it was bought by Jeff Bezos for $250 million in August 2013. This was preceded by Bezos' AWS getting a $600 million CIA web services contract in March 2013. This seems to have resulted in a rather striking shift in coverage and editorial opinion at the WaPo. Prior to this, the Washington Post had published a striking expose of the national security state, by reporters Dana Priest and William Arkin, entitled "Top Secret America". Here's legendary nuclear weapons historian Richard Rhodes reviewing the book that came out of that effort in 2011: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/top-secret-america-the-rise-of-the-new-american-security-state-by-dana-priest-and-william-m-arkin/2011/09/30/gIQAvkkUkL_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/top-secre... > "“Top Secret America” originated in a 2010 Washington Post series of the same name that set out to enumerate how many Americans held top secret clearances — about 854,000, the Post’s investigative team found, more than the population of Washington. The book is far more ambitious than was the series, however, and makes the team’s investigations available in detail to those of us who live beyond the Beltway..." Since the change of ownership at the WaPo, with the new owner probably interested in the perpetual renewal of that AWS CIA contract and expanding such services to all the other intel agencies, I can't think of anything even remotely similar being published at the Post. Note this doesn't mean WaPo employees have gone back to being CIA agents, rather that the editorial board has realized that publishing any more such exposes are probably not going to help with their future careers at the Post. Another Church Committee with the power to subpoena all the relevant parties under oath about this situation might be a good idea, but don't hold your breath.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rhizome 5y ago
  A better idea is breaking up Amazon, splitting off, at the very least, AWS and WaPo from the retailer/logistics firm.
stopglobalism 5y ago
Operation Mockingbird is an alleged large-scale program of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that began in the early years of the Cold War and attempted to manipulate news media for propaganda purposes. ... "alleged". .... haha. hahaha. HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird Ask Anderson "Mockingbird" Cooper over at C(IA)N(EWS)N(ETWORK)
dionian 5y ago
Wasn't the CIA one of the groups pushing the Russia conspiracy angle? I remember John Brennan, former head of the CIA, was on MSNBC for years pushing this theory.
- yonaguska 5y ago
  Shhh- none of that happened. Move on please. Biden is president now and all that stuff is irrelevant now.
  - dang 5y ago
    Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to Hacker News? We're trying for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - yonaguska 5y ago
      Sorry, not trying to flamebait, just making light of the fact that what was the biggest news story for nearly 3 years running, and is now a common cultural reference- has been memory-holed now that facts about the case are coming out. I could have phrased it better.
- mhh__ 5y ago
  Emphasis on one of though, it wasn't like they just dropped a bomb and left. There were other groups involved. This https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associat... And https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_... are fairly good articles last time I checked. I kind of subscribe to the "OSINT groups are led on by state intelligence agencies" theory, but that doesn't mean they're wrong.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
Relevant: https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-...
- mrjangles 5y ago
  I find it interesting that 2013, the year the CIA was allowed to secretly start spreading propaganda again, was about the same time the current state of vitriolic news media coverage (clearly meant to divide and turn people against each other) began at CNN. Also, CNN just so happens to have "ex" CIA agents like Anderson Cooper front and center at their news team (quotes around "ex" because he still works for the CIA obviously). EDIT: Also worth noting this comment below https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29498797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29498797 which also happened in 2013
  - coolgeek 5y ago
    > was about the same time the current state of vitriolic news media coverage (clearly meant to divide and turn people against each other) began at CNN If CNN's content was vitriolic and divisive, how would you characterize right-leaning media during the same time? Also, what are your thought on the fact that Republicans held full control of Congress when the repeal was enacted?
    - mrjangles 5y ago
      If you know of any well known CIA agents working in right-leaning media at that time, and you noticed that their show changed course at that time, it would be a pretty clear indication of what their agenda was don't you think? Anyway, name the show and the person and I'll definitely take a note of what message they are pushing. >Also, what are your thought on the fact that Republicans held full control of Congress when the repeal was enacted? My thoughts are exactly the same as when McCain's vote stopped the repeal of the affordable care act and all the main leaders of the Republican party on the floor cheered loudly before Mitch McConnell quickly hushed them up. The people in power see eye to eye on everything, especially the issue of control.
champagnois 5y ago
The intelligence agencies exist to advance some view of what our civilization should be. If you are not an anarchist or some other form of misguided extremist, then you probably agree with the goal or intentions of the state's IC apparratus even if you find a given mission or action of the IC to be strange when looked at and analyzed out of context. What I mean to say here is that there is a grand strategy at play, but you may, in your lives and in your careers, encounter a single out-of-context action of such agencies and you will be left feeling their actions were odd, but your feelings on the matter are a result of lacking context and that context is, unfortunately, only disclosed on a need-to-know basis. So, to those not involved in a goven operation, yes, the agencies will seem to be distorting reality all of the time... Use your brain and ask yourself the motive -- there is definitely a context in all scenarios that explains things pretty well and your elected leaders have signed off on that context after hearing the sales pitch of some analyst turned manager in the agency. TL;DR have faith in the actions of our nation's clandestine services. They are working to our benefit and their lives are on the line.
- dman 5y ago
  Are you in a position to confirm or deny that you work for an intelligence agency?
  - champagnois 5y ago
    Consider me just a well-traveled, well-informed, well-meaning individual of reasonable intelligence who cares about my family and civilization. You should be worrying about the foreign agents and the incredibly sophisticated plans they are executing on our soil and on social media. If you care about your family or your civilization, you should be doing your part to help the big picture in what ever way you can. It matters. Help your community members live healthier, more meaningful lives. Help people stay away from social media and focused on making themselves and the world better with micro improvements, day by day.
    - atentaten 5y ago
      How are our clandestine agencies covertly or overtly helping us live healthier, meaningful, social-media-free lives?
Jerry2 5y ago
In one of the previous threads on the influence of the CIA on the media, someone mentioned that there was a documentary about this. It's called "On Company Business (1980)" and it features interviews with former CIA directors and various officers and also with lots of critics [1]. I managed to find a copy of it on YouTube and it's absolutely amazing and can't recommend it enough if you want to hear about the creation of the CIA and their work from principal actors [2]. Among many other things they discuss, it details how the CIA infiltrated the media. It seems to me that the only difference between 40 years ago and today is that some TV networks and media companies are not even hiding their association with the CIA and hire former CIA officers in the open as "analysts" so they can push their agenda. [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093265/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093265/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYrznlDTE_M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYrznlDTE_M
- 1cvmask 5y ago
  There are some great John Stockwell videos on CSPAN and YouTube. Here is one on fake news and the CIA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XibCflWxZuA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XibCflWxZuA John Stockwell on the CIA secret wars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTTVdGOHDqg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTTVdGOHDqg
- throaway46546 5y ago
  Sometimes they straight up hire them as anchors. https://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/09/my-summer-job-nearly-20-years-ago.html https://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blo...
landonxjames 5y ago
I’m generally less worried about explicit interference like this (which mostly seems to eventually be found out) than I am about the more insidious and ingrained Propaganda Model [0] proposed by Chomsky and Herman in Manufacturing Consent. In their own words: > Structural factors are those such as ownership and control, dependence on other major funding sources (notably, advertisers), and mutual interests and relationships between the media and those who make the news and have the power to define it and explain what it means. The propaganda model also incorporates other closely related factors such as the ability to complain about the media’s treatment of news (that is, produce “flak”), to provide “experts” to confirm the official slant on the news, and to fix the basic principles and ideologies that are taken for granted by media personnel and the elite, but are often resisted by the general population.1 In our view, the same underlying power sources that own the media and fund them as advertisers, that serve as primary definers of the news, and that produce flak and proper-thinking experts, also play a key role in fixing basic principles and the dominant ideologies. We believe that what journalists do, what they see as newsworthy, and what they take for granted as premises of their work are frequently well explained by the incentives, pressures, and constraints incorporated into such a structural analysis. These structural factors that dominate media operations are not allcontrolling and do not always produce simple and homogeneous results. The media, despite all of its supposed diversity, is really just a dialogue between powerful entities, but it strictly avoids criticizing or even acknowledging the foundational principles of the structures that give it power. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  I don't think you need to choose which of these things to "worry about". Instead, I think it's important to mention that direct CIA interference is just the most obvious part of the system of propaganda and if such interference ceased, the propaganda problem would remain. And more broadly, the press has traditionally served US interests because it's an institution of US society and shares interests with other US institutions. The idea that there could be a purely unbiased press itself something of an American invention - historically, the press has always had a place in on political spectrum. That not saying the propagandistic quality of the modern press isn't to worry. It's gone a bit from an argument for our side to a manipulation for our side. How bad that still depends on how bad you think the given sides are. The standard argument during the Cold War was "however bad we might act, the other side is worse, so we need to effective". Now, one can find some equivalent if you to defend the situation.
CosmicCarl 5y ago
State-sponsored terrorist organisation, with a reach greater than any other.
galgot 5y ago
This is old, but still quite interesting, John Stockwell gives some examples: https://youtu.be/NK1tfkESPVY https://youtu.be/NK1tfkESPVY
Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
MSNBC and CNN have the closest (visible) ties to the intelligence entities today, with a revolving door between them. Clapper and Brennan are big examples, but only two. Weird thought, so I try not to think too hard about it.
kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
“That which has been is what will be, That which is done is what will be done, And there is nothing new under the sun.”

276 points by 1cvmask 5y ago

The Secret CIA Campaign to Influence Culture: Covert Cultural Operations (2000) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdLB5l2wN3o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdLB5l2wN3o Watch or read Frances Stonor Saunders for some insights on how this works.

disk0 5y ago
Some more recent academic work on the CCC recently started reading—The CIA and the Congress for Cultural Freedom in the Early Cold War: Strange Bedfellows, Routledge [2016] Partial summary from libgen description: >This book calls into question the conventional wisdom about one of the most controversial episodes in the Cold War, and tells the story of the CIA's backing of the Congress for Cultural Freedom. >For nearly two decades of the early Cold War, the CIA secretly sponsored some of the world’s most feted writers, philosophers, and scientists as part of a campaign to stop Communism from regaining a foothold in western Europe and Asia. By backing the Congress for Cultural Freedom, the CIA subsidized dozens of prominent magazines, global congresses, annual seminars, and artistic festivals. When this operation―QKOPERA―became public in 1967, it ignited one of the most damaging scandals in CIA history. Ever since, the prevailing assumption has been that the CIA, as the Congress’s paymaster, manipulated a generation of intellectuals into lending their names to pro-American, anti-Communist ideas in exchange for prestigious bylines and plentiful grants. Even today, a cloud hangs over the reputations of many of the intellectuals associated with the Congress. >This book tells the story of how a small but determined group of anti-Communist intellectuals in America and Western Europe banded together to fight the Soviet Union’s cultural offensive. They enlisted one of the CIA’s earliest recruits to their cause―and they persuaded the CIA to foot their bill with virtually no strings attached. The CIA became a bureaucratic behemoth with an outsized influence on American foreign policy, but it began as a disorganized and unconventional outfit desperate to make inroads on all fronts against a foe many believed would ignite a nuclear war by 1954. When Michael Josselson, a recruit from the CIA’s Berlin office, pitched a proposal for what became the Congress for Cultural Freedom, senior officials were thus willing to gamble $50,000 on the venture. And when the Congress proved effective in enlisting some of the twentieth century’s most prominent intellectuals, senior CIA officials championed QKOPERA as the centerpiece of the Agency’s efforts to woo the non-Communist left.

boredumb 5y ago

Mock (yeah) ing (yeah) bird (yeah) Yeah, yeah Mockingbird

bediger4000 5y ago

If we take Bernstein at his word (and there's no reason not to), basically all the US media has secretly cooperated with the CIA. Is there any reason to think this isn't going on right now? I mean, google "ken dilanian cia" for a good time. Then think: Dilanian is still a working journalist. How is this congruent with a free press? Surely this willingness to cooperate with a spy agency that has done some very bad things over the years spills over to other areas. Am I supposed to believe that all these media cover current politics objectively, if they've enthusiastically cooperated with the CIA in the past?

adolph 5y ago
> Am I supposed to believe that all these media cover current politics objectively, if they've enthusiastically cooperated with the CIA in the past? Yes, that would be the point. Maybe more to the point: if you don't believe, you should believe the CIA has the power to make belief in other people. Moreover if you express non-belief you will be labeled a conspiracy theorist by society and shunned.
- Aperocky 5y ago
  > Am I supposed to believe that all these media cover current politics objectively LOL I don't need this article to tell me that, it's so blatantly obvious.
  - bediger4000 5y ago
    Yeah, me too, really. The media have a fairly conservative bias, despite all the Republican claims of "liberal bias". I thought this conservative bias came from media trying to keep Republicans from claiming "liberal bias", but now I'm wondering if the CIA has something to do with it.
    - colpabar 5y ago
      > The media have a fairly conservative bias Can you explain what you mean by this, with some examples?

blakesterz 5y ago

This is from 1977 "His 25,000-word cover story, published in Rolling Stone on October 20, 1977, is reprinted below."

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

1cvmask 5y ago

Good indicative piece in the article: Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune. By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.

markus_zhang 5y ago

One thing I realized about the media is that there is ALWAYS forces behind to manipulate the view. In the best case when journalists are simple individuals, their view of the world still create sort of biases. From that perspective, nothing is objective and everything is subjective. This might be an extreme view but I do believe it's a good mental antidote.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
It seems like you are making two points here. That the view is manipulated by forces behind the scenes and that the view is subjective. Yes. All humans who write words down taint them with their own subjective view. This does not mean that we are powerless though. Reporting can be improved by fact checking, editing, and other means. We can also use technology to make sure that the color of chosen words does not prime the reader. This does not imply manipulation or behind the scenes manipulation. My own opinion: Media bias is a boogeyman. If somebody needs to be flatly told what is or isn't biased or if some source is left or right leaning then they are a dimwit. Even asking for unbiased information shows stupidity- it does not exist in an absolute sense. I agree with you that you should start from a frame of mind that the media is biased because it is. Embrace it. There seems to be a push to therefore reject all news media which is a scary thought. The press is the only private entity specifically mentioned in the US Constitution. It is often called the 4th branch of government because of the oversight that it provides.

h2odragon 5y ago

This is still only for the foreign stuff tho, right? For Domestic Propaganda they consult the FBI. I can certainly see a reporter having no issue with hearing about things the government would like to know before doing a trip someplace, that they want to know might be newsworthy itself. Not disclosing the connection is where the ethical alligators lie.

imwillofficial 5y ago
This is the intention, but history has shown this to be false.

photochemsyn 5y ago

That's a very interesting article with a lot of relevance for today's American media world, which also seems to have a very intertwined relationship with the various intelligence agencies (16 or so) of the US government. One case that stands out today is that of the Washington Post and its editorial/journalistic direction since it was bought by Jeff Bezos for $250 million in August 2013. This was preceded by Bezos' AWS getting a $600 million CIA web services contract in March 2013. This seems to have resulted in a rather striking shift in coverage and editorial opinion at the WaPo. Prior to this, the Washington Post had published a striking expose of the national security state, by reporters Dana Priest and William Arkin, entitled "Top Secret America". Here's legendary nuclear weapons historian Richard Rhodes reviewing the book that came out of that effort in 2011: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/top-secret-america-the-rise-of-the-new-american-security-state-by-dana-priest-and-william-m-arkin/2011/09/30/gIQAvkkUkL_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/top-secre... > "“Top Secret America” originated in a 2010 Washington Post series of the same name that set out to enumerate how many Americans held top secret clearances — about 854,000, the Post’s investigative team found, more than the population of Washington. The book is far more ambitious than was the series, however, and makes the team’s investigations available in detail to those of us who live beyond the Beltway..." Since the change of ownership at the WaPo, with the new owner probably interested in the perpetual renewal of that AWS CIA contract and expanding such services to all the other intel agencies, I can't think of anything even remotely similar being published at the Post. Note this doesn't mean WaPo employees have gone back to being CIA agents, rather that the editorial board has realized that publishing any more such exposes are probably not going to help with their future careers at the Post. Another Church Committee with the power to subpoena all the relevant parties under oath about this situation might be a good idea, but don't hold your breath.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rhizome 5y ago
A better idea is breaking up Amazon, splitting off, at the very least, AWS and WaPo from the retailer/logistics firm.

stopglobalism 5y ago

Operation Mockingbird is an alleged large-scale program of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that began in the early years of the Cold War and attempted to manipulate news media for propaganda purposes. ... "alleged". .... haha. hahaha. HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird Ask Anderson "Mockingbird" Cooper over at C(IA)N(EWS)N(ETWORK)

dionian 5y ago

Wasn't the CIA one of the groups pushing the Russia conspiracy angle? I remember John Brennan, former head of the CIA, was on MSNBC for years pushing this theory.

yonaguska 5y ago
Shhh- none of that happened. Move on please. Biden is president now and all that stuff is irrelevant now.
- dang 5y ago
  Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to Hacker News? We're trying for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - yonaguska 5y ago
    Sorry, not trying to flamebait, just making light of the fact that what was the biggest news story for nearly 3 years running, and is now a common cultural reference- has been memory-holed now that facts about the case are coming out. I could have phrased it better.
mhh__ 5y ago
Emphasis on one of though, it wasn't like they just dropped a bomb and left. There were other groups involved. This https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associat... And https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_... are fairly good articles last time I checked. I kind of subscribe to the "OSINT groups are led on by state intelligence agencies" theory, but that doesn't mean they're wrong.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

NaturalPhallacy 5y ago

Relevant: https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-...

mrjangles 5y ago
I find it interesting that 2013, the year the CIA was allowed to secretly start spreading propaganda again, was about the same time the current state of vitriolic news media coverage (clearly meant to divide and turn people against each other) began at CNN. Also, CNN just so happens to have "ex" CIA agents like Anderson Cooper front and center at their news team (quotes around "ex" because he still works for the CIA obviously). EDIT: Also worth noting this comment below https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29498797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29498797 which also happened in 2013
- coolgeek 5y ago
  > was about the same time the current state of vitriolic news media coverage (clearly meant to divide and turn people against each other) began at CNN If CNN's content was vitriolic and divisive, how would you characterize right-leaning media during the same time? Also, what are your thought on the fact that Republicans held full control of Congress when the repeal was enacted?
  - mrjangles 5y ago
    If you know of any well known CIA agents working in right-leaning media at that time, and you noticed that their show changed course at that time, it would be a pretty clear indication of what their agenda was don't you think? Anyway, name the show and the person and I'll definitely take a note of what message they are pushing. >Also, what are your thought on the fact that Republicans held full control of Congress when the repeal was enacted? My thoughts are exactly the same as when McCain's vote stopped the repeal of the affordable care act and all the main leaders of the Republican party on the floor cheered loudly before Mitch McConnell quickly hushed them up. The people in power see eye to eye on everything, especially the issue of control.

champagnois 5y ago

The intelligence agencies exist to advance some view of what our civilization should be. If you are not an anarchist or some other form of misguided extremist, then you probably agree with the goal or intentions of the state's IC apparratus even if you find a given mission or action of the IC to be strange when looked at and analyzed out of context. What I mean to say here is that there is a grand strategy at play, but you may, in your lives and in your careers, encounter a single out-of-context action of such agencies and you will be left feeling their actions were odd, but your feelings on the matter are a result of lacking context and that context is, unfortunately, only disclosed on a need-to-know basis. So, to those not involved in a goven operation, yes, the agencies will seem to be distorting reality all of the time... Use your brain and ask yourself the motive -- there is definitely a context in all scenarios that explains things pretty well and your elected leaders have signed off on that context after hearing the sales pitch of some analyst turned manager in the agency. TL;DR have faith in the actions of our nation's clandestine services. They are working to our benefit and their lives are on the line.

dman 5y ago
Are you in a position to confirm or deny that you work for an intelligence agency?
- champagnois 5y ago
  Consider me just a well-traveled, well-informed, well-meaning individual of reasonable intelligence who cares about my family and civilization. You should be worrying about the foreign agents and the incredibly sophisticated plans they are executing on our soil and on social media. If you care about your family or your civilization, you should be doing your part to help the big picture in what ever way you can. It matters. Help your community members live healthier, more meaningful lives. Help people stay away from social media and focused on making themselves and the world better with micro improvements, day by day.
  - atentaten 5y ago
    How are our clandestine agencies covertly or overtly helping us live healthier, meaningful, social-media-free lives?

Jerry2 5y ago

In one of the previous threads on the influence of the CIA on the media, someone mentioned that there was a documentary about this. It's called "On Company Business (1980)" and it features interviews with former CIA directors and various officers and also with lots of critics [1]. I managed to find a copy of it on YouTube and it's absolutely amazing and can't recommend it enough if you want to hear about the creation of the CIA and their work from principal actors [2]. Among many other things they discuss, it details how the CIA infiltrated the media. It seems to me that the only difference between 40 years ago and today is that some TV networks and media companies are not even hiding their association with the CIA and hire former CIA officers in the open as "analysts" so they can push their agenda. [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093265/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093265/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYrznlDTE_M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYrznlDTE_M

1cvmask 5y ago
There are some great John Stockwell videos on CSPAN and YouTube. Here is one on fake news and the CIA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XibCflWxZuA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XibCflWxZuA John Stockwell on the CIA secret wars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTTVdGOHDqg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTTVdGOHDqg
throaway46546 5y ago
Sometimes they straight up hire them as anchors. https://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/09/my-summer-job-nearly-20-years-ago.html https://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blo...

landonxjames 5y ago

I’m generally less worried about explicit interference like this (which mostly seems to eventually be found out) than I am about the more insidious and ingrained Propaganda Model [0] proposed by Chomsky and Herman in Manufacturing Consent. In their own words: > Structural factors are those such as ownership and control, dependence on other major funding sources (notably, advertisers), and mutual interests and relationships between the media and those who make the news and have the power to define it and explain what it means. The propaganda model also incorporates other closely related factors such as the ability to complain about the media’s treatment of news (that is, produce “flak”), to provide “experts” to confirm the official slant on the news, and to fix the basic principles and ideologies that are taken for granted by media personnel and the elite, but are often resisted by the general population.1 In our view, the same underlying power sources that own the media and fund them as advertisers, that serve as primary definers of the news, and that produce flak and proper-thinking experts, also play a key role in fixing basic principles and the dominant ideologies. We believe that what journalists do, what they see as newsworthy, and what they take for granted as premises of their work are frequently well explained by the incentives, pressures, and constraints incorporated into such a structural analysis. These structural factors that dominate media operations are not allcontrolling and do not always produce simple and homogeneous results. The media, despite all of its supposed diversity, is really just a dialogue between powerful entities, but it strictly avoids criticizing or even acknowledging the foundational principles of the structures that give it power. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

joe_the_user 5y ago
I don't think you need to choose which of these things to "worry about". Instead, I think it's important to mention that direct CIA interference is just the most obvious part of the system of propaganda and if such interference ceased, the propaganda problem would remain. And more broadly, the press has traditionally served US interests because it's an institution of US society and shares interests with other US institutions. The idea that there could be a purely unbiased press itself something of an American invention - historically, the press has always had a place in on political spectrum. That not saying the propagandistic quality of the modern press isn't to worry. It's gone a bit from an argument for our side to a manipulation for our side. How bad that still depends on how bad you think the given sides are. The standard argument during the Cold War was "however bad we might act, the other side is worse, so we need to effective". Now, one can find some equivalent if you to defend the situation.

CosmicCarl 5y ago

State-sponsored terrorist organisation, with a reach greater than any other.

galgot 5y ago

This is old, but still quite interesting, John Stockwell gives some examples: https://youtu.be/NK1tfkESPVY https://youtu.be/NK1tfkESPVY

Wolfenstein98k 5y ago

MSNBC and CNN have the closest (visible) ties to the intelligence entities today, with a revolving door between them. Clapper and Brennan are big examples, but only two. Weird thought, so I try not to think too hard about it.

kwertyoowiyop 5y ago

“That which has been is what will be, That which is done is what will be done, And there is nothing new under the sun.”