4 ms·

>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

>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? There is a reason. Controversy which began in 1973 and spurred Congressional investigations and this very article led to the CIA to sign a 1977 directive that prohibited them from recruiting or impersonating journalists, peace corps, and the clergy. There was a loophole discovered in 1996 that allows the agency to waiver that directive in extreme circumstances and must notify the president, and a couple others (cant remember). This prompted a clause in the 1997 authorization act which codified into law that the CIA must notify both the house and senate intelligence committees and get a written sign-off with reasoning why its necessary from either the President or CIA director before impersonating or recruiting a journalist.

tchalla 5y ago
> There is a reason. Controversy which began in 1973 and spurred Congressional investigations and this very article led to the CIA to sign a 1977 directive that prohibited them from recruiting or impersonating journalists, peace corps, and the clergy. That doesn't mean they don't influence the media. The next time there are a sequence of articles on a particular country - you can think about when it plays up.
- realce 5y ago
  I'm not trying to go to bat for The Company but all sources of information "influence the media" and it's the job of a good journalist to get info from every source available to them, including intelligence agencies. The wording of "influence" is just too vague - prohibitions need to be specific. The CIA saying they'll deport your undocumented housekeeper if you don't print XYZ is one thing, them feeding information with "spin" on it to a journalist is another entirely.
  - harry8 5y ago
    Spin is merely interpretation and framing. /You/ can de-spin anything you read when that's all it is and you should. Read stuff from biased sources that have a very different outlook to yours. Al-Jazeera, the BBC, NPR, PBS, even disasters like MSNBC and Fox are worth some attention despite their unbelievable amounts of spin. Lies are lies. It's not framing. It's not interpretation. It's "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."[1] Spin that as we must go to war. Frame it as a global crisis. You can have a subtly or radically different viewpoint. When the majority of the country believe the deliberately planted lie, /spin/ is basically irrelevant. Influence the media is more about publishing deliberately fabricated lies designed for a given purpose and treating them as fact. It can get a country engage its army to kill when it otherwise would not want to do that. Doesn't get much more serious and less like /spin/, imho. [1] Or Russia pays bounties to kill American troops in Afghanistan and the President does not care. Exactly when the president is trying to execute policy (rightly or wrongly) on Afghanistan. It's not spin when it's a lie, treated as truth to mobilize public opinion where it otherwise probably would not go. Rightly or wrongly the American public overwhelmingly support the withdrawal from Afghanistan and did so under both Biden and Trump. For those who supported remaining in Afghanistan this should be a concern that such happens and seems not to have direct consequences when exposed. One indirect consequence is the increasing total mistrust of factual news reporting which is something of an issue in a democracy.
    - bobthechef 5y ago
      What is interpretation? What is spin? What is framing? There is such a thing as an incorrect interpretation. Calling my flooded basement a "global crisis" is simply wrong. If I know it isn't a global crisis and yet continue to claim it is, then I am indeed lying. Spin involves deliberately misleading people in a way that suits your ends which is also characteristic of lying, or at the very least, it characteristic indifference to the truth (bullshitting) and concern for producing a certain desired result. Whether this qualifies under a strict definition of lying or not, it is nonetheless in the same general vicinity. Both involve the abuse of language by using it as an instrument of power wielded over another.
- jasonfarnon 5y ago
  The executive enforces the laws. The CIA is under the executive.
the_optimist 5y ago
> must notify both the house and senate intelligence committees and get a written sign-off This is an interesting legal artifact but it doesn’t speak to appraisal of whether or not this is currently occurring or has occurred. In other words, they could simply have pressed this loophole with another loophole, or those committed could have simply signed off. Absence of evidence remains not evidence of absence.
- harry8 5y ago
  >> must notify both the house and senate intelligence committees and get a written sign-off Further, didn't James Clapper lie, in public, under oath in an oversight committee hearing then admit that he had done so when caught out and face exactly zero legal or career consequences for that flagrantly illegal act? "Must" seems to be open to interpretation meaning something very different to its dictionary definition when this is one, well known and obvious example of how the law is not applied when breached. Is there any real oversight? How would we know?
dreamcompiler 5y ago
That act was to stop foreign governments from jailing journalists for spying, but since more journalists are jailed now than ever before, it doesn't seem to have worked.

tchalla 5y ago

> There is a reason. Controversy which began in 1973 and spurred Congressional investigations and this very article led to the CIA to sign a 1977 directive that prohibited them from recruiting or impersonating journalists, peace corps, and the clergy. That doesn't mean they don't influence the media. The next time there are a sequence of articles on a particular country - you can think about when it plays up.

realce 5y ago
I'm not trying to go to bat for The Company but all sources of information "influence the media" and it's the job of a good journalist to get info from every source available to them, including intelligence agencies. The wording of "influence" is just too vague - prohibitions need to be specific. The CIA saying they'll deport your undocumented housekeeper if you don't print XYZ is one thing, them feeding information with "spin" on it to a journalist is another entirely.
- harry8 5y ago
  Spin is merely interpretation and framing. /You/ can de-spin anything you read when that's all it is and you should. Read stuff from biased sources that have a very different outlook to yours. Al-Jazeera, the BBC, NPR, PBS, even disasters like MSNBC and Fox are worth some attention despite their unbelievable amounts of spin. Lies are lies. It's not framing. It's not interpretation. It's "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."[1] Spin that as we must go to war. Frame it as a global crisis. You can have a subtly or radically different viewpoint. When the majority of the country believe the deliberately planted lie, /spin/ is basically irrelevant. Influence the media is more about publishing deliberately fabricated lies designed for a given purpose and treating them as fact. It can get a country engage its army to kill when it otherwise would not want to do that. Doesn't get much more serious and less like /spin/, imho. [1] Or Russia pays bounties to kill American troops in Afghanistan and the President does not care. Exactly when the president is trying to execute policy (rightly or wrongly) on Afghanistan. It's not spin when it's a lie, treated as truth to mobilize public opinion where it otherwise probably would not go. Rightly or wrongly the American public overwhelmingly support the withdrawal from Afghanistan and did so under both Biden and Trump. For those who supported remaining in Afghanistan this should be a concern that such happens and seems not to have direct consequences when exposed. One indirect consequence is the increasing total mistrust of factual news reporting which is something of an issue in a democracy.
  - bobthechef 5y ago
    What is interpretation? What is spin? What is framing? There is such a thing as an incorrect interpretation. Calling my flooded basement a "global crisis" is simply wrong. If I know it isn't a global crisis and yet continue to claim it is, then I am indeed lying. Spin involves deliberately misleading people in a way that suits your ends which is also characteristic of lying, or at the very least, it characteristic indifference to the truth (bullshitting) and concern for producing a certain desired result. Whether this qualifies under a strict definition of lying or not, it is nonetheless in the same general vicinity. Both involve the abuse of language by using it as an instrument of power wielded over another.
jasonfarnon 5y ago
The executive enforces the laws. The CIA is under the executive.

the_optimist 5y ago

> must notify both the house and senate intelligence committees and get a written sign-off This is an interesting legal artifact but it doesn’t speak to appraisal of whether or not this is currently occurring or has occurred. In other words, they could simply have pressed this loophole with another loophole, or those committed could have simply signed off. Absence of evidence remains not evidence of absence.

harry8 5y ago
>> must notify both the house and senate intelligence committees and get a written sign-off Further, didn't James Clapper lie, in public, under oath in an oversight committee hearing then admit that he had done so when caught out and face exactly zero legal or career consequences for that flagrantly illegal act? "Must" seems to be open to interpretation meaning something very different to its dictionary definition when this is one, well known and obvious example of how the law is not applied when breached. Is there any real oversight? How would we know?

dreamcompiler 5y ago

That act was to stop foreign governments from jailing journalists for spying, but since more journalists are jailed now than ever before, it doesn't seem to have worked.