3 ms·

Did you not read the article or are you disputing the facts of it?

by sharkjacobs 3y ago

legitster 3y ago
The facts presented in the article do not support the assertion of the clickbait title.
- sharkjacobs 3y ago
  What do you dispute? I don't know if running dozens of literary magazines for decades costs more or less than launching dozens of cruise missiles, but it's still a "fortune" in terms of money being thrown around in literary criticism circles.
  - legitster 3y ago
    They did not fund the literary magazine, they just exerted influence on who was the editor. They did not do it to suppress a single book. A bad review is not the same as suppression in any way. So every piece of the headline is wrong. This book achieved widespread success and notoriety in every part of the world after it was published and the book was not really on the CIA's radar at all.
    - sharkjacobs 3y ago
      > They did not fund the literary magazine, they just exerted influence on who was the editor. I'm not an expert on this topic but I think that this is incorrect > The Congress for Cultural Freedom is widely considered one of the CIA’s more daring and effective Cold War covert operations. It published literary and political journals such as Encounter, hosted dozens of conferences bringing together some of the most eminent Western thinkers, and even did what it could to help intellectuals behind the Iron Curtain[1] > A bad review is not the same as suppression in any way. Receiving negative reviews from critics sponsored by the CIA is not the same as having publication of your book blocked by a CIA backed dictatorship, experiencing one after the other could warrant the use of such a term. [1] https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/studies-in-intelligence/1995-2/origins-of-the-congress-of-cultural-freedom-1949-50-cultural-cold-war/ https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/studies-in-intelligence/19...

3 ms·

Did you not read the article or are you disputing the facts of it?

by sharkjacobs 3y ago

Did you not read the article or are you disputing the facts of it?

legitster 3y ago
The facts presented in the article do not support the assertion of the clickbait title.
- sharkjacobs 3y ago
  What do you dispute? I don't know if running dozens of literary magazines for decades costs more or less than launching dozens of cruise missiles, but it's still a "fortune" in terms of money being thrown around in literary criticism circles.
  - legitster 3y ago
    They did not fund the literary magazine, they just exerted influence on who was the editor. They did not do it to suppress a single book. A bad review is not the same as suppression in any way. So every piece of the headline is wrong. This book achieved widespread success and notoriety in every part of the world after it was published and the book was not really on the CIA's radar at all.
    - sharkjacobs 3y ago
      > They did not fund the literary magazine, they just exerted influence on who was the editor. I'm not an expert on this topic but I think that this is incorrect > The Congress for Cultural Freedom is widely considered one of the CIA’s more daring and effective Cold War covert operations. It published literary and political journals such as Encounter, hosted dozens of conferences bringing together some of the most eminent Western thinkers, and even did what it could to help intellectuals behind the Iron Curtain[1] > A bad review is not the same as suppression in any way. Receiving negative reviews from critics sponsored by the CIA is not the same as having publication of your book blocked by a CIA backed dictatorship, experiencing one after the other could warrant the use of such a term. [1] https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/studies-in-intelligence/1995-2/origins-of-the-congress-of-cultural-freedom-1949-50-cultural-cold-war/ https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/studies-in-intelligence/19...