5 ms·
What discredits a piece should be its accuracy, not its political leaning. That the CIA was not created till 1947, as already pointed out by serallak, will, n
by ANarrativeApe 3y ago
What discredits a piece should be its accuracy, not its political leaning.
That the CIA was not created till 1947, as already pointed out by serallak, will, not stop me from adding the novel to my reading list.
What saddens is the willingness of the community to defend inaccuracy when they agree with the underlying point the inaccuracy is supporting. The author of the article could have said US Intelligence Assets, and forgone the clickbait of CIA. Putting SEO requirements ahead of factual accuracy, particularly when the fact is so easily fact checked, is not how the world gets changed for the better.
- Convolutional 3y agoThis piece covers a period of time from the 1930s into the 1960s. What is actually inaccurate? The CIA was doing the things the piece mentions from its inception onward.
- iudqnolq 3y agoThe title is correct: the CIA spent a significant amount of money to suppress the book. That the CIA was founded shortly after the book was published doesn't make that impossible.
- isleyaardvark 3y ago1946 the book was published, 1947 the CIA was created. Complaining that is an “inaccuracy” is pedantic.
- Convolutional 3y ago> 1946 the book was published, 1947 the CIA was created. Right. So what is inaccurate in the piece? I don't see anything that contradicts this.
- isleyaardvark 3y agoI’m not disagreeing with you, just adding to your argument so everyone is clear just how close the two events were.
- shkkmo 3y ago> The author of the article could have said US Intelligence Assets, and forgone the clickbait of CIA. The author makes specific claims about the exact ways that the CIA tried to suppress the novel and author. Do you dispute any of them? It's pretty rich to talk about "easily fact checked" when you don't engage at all with the factual basis for the claims your are disputing.
- dragonwriter 3y ago[flagged]
- Convolutional 3y ago> Since the CIA did not, in fact, exist, any claims of what the CIA tried to do are self-evidently false, and need no more rebuttal than the date the CIA came into being. The CIA did not exist prior to its establishment in 1947, to use your nomenclature. So what is false? Everything it says the CIA did from 1947 to the 1960s is true.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> The CIA did not exist prior to its establishment in 1947, to use your nomenclature. So what is false? The claim specifically made in the article that the delay in publication from 1936 to 1946 was due to CIA action through a front group.
- Convolutional 3y ago> The claim specifically made in the article that the delay in publication from 1936 to 1946 was due to CIA action through a front group. It doesn't say that anywhere in the article. You've created a conditional in your head that is found nowhere in the article.
- dragonwriter 3y agoIt claims the suppression was “specifically” by the CIA, and the first example of this suppression by the CIA it gives is the publication delay, ascribed to actions of a group, which it ties into the thesis by saying was later identified as a CIA front group.
- sillystuff 3y agoIf this book interests you, here are a couple additional books to add to your reading list with similar subject matter: Bitter Fruit: The Untold Story of the American Coup in Guatemala - Stephen Schlesinger and Stephen Kinzer Las venas abiertas de América Latina - Eduardo Galeano The English translation is titled, Open Veins of Latin America (Isabel Allende said she carried a copy of Galeano's book with her as she fled the 1973 US backed coup that overthrew the democratic government in Chile and installed the brutal far-right murderous dictator Pinochet)