The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.

[zaphod2016]

Please help confirm/debunk this quote:

The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.

It is attributed to William Colby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Colby).

Specifically, this quote has been sourced (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/william_colby_quote_5057) to this book:

Derailing Democracy: The America the Media Don't Want You to See (http://www.amazon.com/Derailing-Democracy-America-Media-Dont/dp/1567511848) by David McGowan.

If you use the "Look Inside" link (top left from Amazon) you can see the index (pp 226). I see no mention of Colby, not by himself, nor under Central Intelligence Agency.

Can anyone help me confirm or debunk this quote?

Assuming this book contains this quote, how reliable is the author, David McGowan?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2143/2488685223_0b72e16830.jpg

[geni]

70s? In so far as at that point the CIA was technicaly the world's largest media organisation (there were more CIA employees feeding stories to the media than any one organisation had correspondents) it has a degree of truth.

Obvious problems would be that historicaly at least the CIA has accepted that the british media was MI6 turf and in more recent years has very firmly accepted that it isn't legaly allowed to touch US based media.

[Eyeron]

I thought it was the Jews. No joke intended.

[tuc0]

It seems McGowan's book is the only source for this quote, which means it has zero credibility.

[Brainster]

Here's McGowan's website (http://www.whale.to/b/mcgowan_h.html), where you can learn that rock music of the 1960s (http://www.whale.to/b/inside_the_lc.html) was a CIA plot.

Another of those icons, and one of Laurel Canyon’s most flamboyant residents, is a young man by the name of David Crosby, founding member of the seminal Laurel Canyon band the Byrds, as well as, of course, Crosby, Stills & Nash. Crosby is, not surprisingly, the son of an Annapolis graduate and WWII military intelligence officer, Major Floyd Delafield Crosby. Like others in this story, Floyd Crosby spent much of his post-service time traveling the world. Those travels landed him in places like Haiti, where he paid a visit in 1927, when the country just happened to be, coincidentally of course, under military occupation by the U.S. Marines.

If there is, as many believe, a network of elite families that has shaped national and world events for a very long time, then it is probably safe to say that David Crosby is a bloodline member of that clan .... If America had royalty, then David Crosby would probably be a Duke, or a Prince, or something similar (I’m not really sure how that **** works). But other than that, he is just a normal, run-of-the-mill kind of guy who just happened to shine as one of Laurel Canyon’s brightest stars. And who, I guess I should add, has a real fondness for guns, especially handguns, which he has maintained a sizable collection of for his entire life. According to those closest to him, it is a rare occasion when Mr. Crosby is not packing heat (John Phillips also owned and sometimes carried handguns). And according to Crosby himself, he has, on at least one occasion, discharged a firearm in anger at another human being. All of which made him, of course, an obvious choice for the Flower Children to rally around. PART 1

Another shining star on the Laurel Canyon scene, just a few years later, will be singer-songwriter Jackson Browne, who is – are you getting as bored with this as I am? – the product of a career military family. Browne’s father was assigned to post-war ‘reconstruction’ work in Germany, which very likely means that he was in the employ of the OSS, precursor to the CIA. As readers of my “Understanding the F-Word” may recall, U.S. involvement in post-war reconstruction in Germany largely consisted of maintaining as much of the Nazi infrastructure as possible while shielding war criminals from capture and prosecution. Against that backdrop, Jackson Browne was born in a military hospital in Heidelberg, Germany.

So yeah, I'd say McGowan's about as credible a source as Christopher Bollyn.

[Childlike Empress]

The link you've posted is outdated, this (http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/) seems to be his working website. After asking Google to find "Colby" on that site, a reading list (http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Reading_List.html) turned up with two source descriptions containing the term:

Burton Hersch The Old Boys, Charles Scribner's Son's, 1992
With heavy doses of disinformation, this book traces the origins of the OSS and the Central Intelligence Agency, providing details about the Dulles brothers, Richard Helms, William Donovan, William Bullit, Frank Wisner, William Casey, William Colby, and the rest of the old boy network.

Gordon Thomas Journey Into Madness, Bantam, 1989
Yet another hard-to-find book that is essential reading both for information on MK-ULTRA as well as for background information on Dulles, Helms, Colby, Casey, Gottlieb, Buckley, and various other key players in the CIA.

[gtc]

Tina Weymouth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tina_Weymouth) is the daughter of a Vice Admiral of the US navy and her brother married the daughter of Katherine Graham, the publisher of the Washington Post.

Her band, the Talking Heads, performed a song called 'Don't Worry about the Government'.

Coincidence? I think not.

[sleahead]

I was curious about where this quote came from and found that the only source quoted online is McGowans book. So I e-mailed McGowan and asked him where he had got it from. He did not reply.

[zaphod2016]

It seems McGowan's book is the only source for this quote, which means it has zero credibility.

Here's McGowan's website (http://www.whale.to/b/mcgowan_h.html), where you can learn that rock music of the 1960s (http://www.whale.to/b/inside_the_lc.html) was a CIA plot.

Ok, McGowan is out. That was easy enough.

Has Colby ever said anything remotely similar?

Has a similar been quote been attributed to someone other than Colby?

Do we have a hybrid of multiple quotes here, or total fabrication?

70s? In so far as at that point the CIA was technicaly the world's largest media organisation (there were more CIA employees feeding stories to the media than any one organisation had correspondents) it has a degree of truth.

[citation needed]

Possibly related:

Operation Mockingbird (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird)

From the Wiki:

This article may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references.

This looks like a gateway to wooville. Is there anything to this? Any confirmed, relevant connections between the CIA and major media?

[Childlike Empress]

I was curious about where this quote came from and found that the only source quoted online is McGowans book. So I e-mailed McGowan and asked him where he had got it from. He did not reply.

When?

[sleahead]

Months ago, CE.

[Childlike Empress]

k, thanks.

[dropzone]

Has Colby ever said anything remotely similar?I'm not sure Bill Colby ever said anything about anything that included any actual information, at least that could be traced back to him. Closed-mouthed old SOB, he was.

[Myron Proudfoot]

Plus, he was DCI 30+ years ago. Even if he said it (which I doubt) he was talking about the 1970s and before... The media landscape was far, far different then...

[Childlike Empress]

Far less concentrated back then, indeed.

[geni]

[citation needed]


<ref>{{cite book |title=Flat Earth news: an award-winning reporter exposes falsehood, distortion and propaganda in the global media |last=Nick |first= Davies |year= 2008 |publisher= Chatto & Windus |isbn=0701181451}}</ref>

[JoeyDonuts]

I can't find any non-McGowan source for this either.

Colby did die in a rather Tom Clancy novel sort of way, though.

Not saying there's anything suspicious about it - 10 minutes in the frigid tidal basin waters of the Northeast US watershed will end just about anyone.

[Klimax]

Far less concentrated back then, indeed.

And even if that,then what? It would go against quote,which would eliminate another part of CT quoitemine.

And what does concentration have to do with owning? For some types of information you cannot get many sources,so it wouldn't matter...

[zaphod2016]

I've been toying with an idea of a book or documentary focusing on (flash) THE MEDIA (thunderclap), but I'm having a hell of a time separating fact from fiction.

The consolidation of media by conglomerates like News Corp is a fact, easily proven due to the disclosure rules surrounding public companies. The "media-opoly" meme is well known in CT circles, and checks out.

On the other hand, we have MORE sources of indy media today then ever before. The only problem is, most indy news is just as biased and unreliable as the "corporate media". Also, many "indy" news sources are owned by conglomerates of their own; digg and reddit to name just two.

However, when it comes to the CIA, or other "propaganda opps", it is extremely hard to prove anything. The government almost always denies everything, which would make sense if it were true OR false (it doesn't really tell you anything). Most "testimony" is gathered from extremely sketchy sources, however, that doesn't automatically discredit it because most self-described "revolutionaries" are a tad sketchy.

Noam Chomsky and "Manufacturing Consent" already laid a lot of ground work here, but I'd like to bring my own research to the table also.

[geni]

I've been toying with an idea of a book or documentary focusing on (flash) THE MEDIA (thunderclap), but I'm having a hell of a time separating fact from fiction.

The consolidation of media by conglomerates like News Corp is a fact, easily proven due to the disclosure rules surrounding public companies. The "media-opoly" meme is well known in CT circles, and checks out.

On the other hand, we have MORE sources of indy media today then ever before. The only problem is, most indy news is just as biased and unreliable as the "corporate media". Also, many "indy" news sources are owned by conglomerates of their own; digg and reddit to name just two.

Neither of those are really media. They are more media aggregators. "indy" news sources would be well indymedia.


However, when it comes to the CIA, or other "propaganda opps", it is extremely hard to prove anything. The government almost always denies everything, which would make sense if it were true OR false (it doesn't really tell you anything). Most "testimony" is gathered from extremely sketchy sources, however, that doesn't automatically discredit it because most self-described "revolutionaries" are a tad sketchy.

The CIA isn't allowed to and as far as is known doesn't touch the US media these days. In any case the classic get an inside man in a media organisation aproach isn't that widely used. Feeding stories to front line journalists is a more popular aproach but western goverments tactics are much the same as those used by private companies.


Noam Chomsky and "Manufacturing Consent" already laid a lot of ground work here, but I'd like to bring my own research to the table also.

Flat Earth News is mostly UK based but it's worth a read even if it suffers from an annoying habit of going off on a tangent.

[zaphod2016]

<ref>{{cite book |title=Flat Earth news: an award-winning reporter exposes falsehood, distortion and propaganda in the global media |last=Nick |first= Davies |year= 2008 |publisher= Chatto & Windus |isbn=0701181451}}</ref>

Flat Earth News (http://www.amazon.com/Flat-Earth-News-Award-Winning-Distortion/dp/0099512688/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253034268&sr=8-1) by Nick Davies.

He writes for the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/nickdavies).

Thanks for the heads up; this is exactly the sort of thing I'm looking for.

If anyone here has any reason why Nick Davies is not a credible source, let them speak now, or whenever they get the chance.

[re: digg, reddit] Neither of those are really media.

Semantics. I'd argue that determining headlines people see is even more relevant than the content of their articles.

[geni]

Semantics. I'd argue that determining headlines people see is even more relevant than the content of their articles.

But by the time it gets there the decision has already been made. Georgia's well developed PR engine means that the headline is "poor little Georgia attacked by russia" rather than "Georgia provokes war with russia then screams like a little girl" or "totaly awesome war breaks out in georgia sit back and watch all that soviet heavy kit you never though would get used going head to head".

[Praktik]

But by the time it gets there the decision has already been made. Georgia's well developed PR engine means that the headline is "poor little Georgia attacked by russia" rather than "Georgia provokes war with russia then screams like a little girl" or "totaly awesome war breaks out in georgia sit back and watch all that soviet heavy kit you never though would get used going head to head".

Well here's how the Georgia thing worked and I'm not sure you could say it was CIA but it was lobbying firms. Georgia had some good lobbying going on in America and there were influential politicians who were involved in either abetting that lobbying or were targetted by the lobbying and rendered sympathetic. So when they were asked for their comments by a media that needs something to be said by a politician first before they'll report it it was likely the stories being run would be sympathetic and partial to Georgia and that's what happened.

I mean, maybe the CIA had a hand in some of this lobbying at some point in the chain but you could also see it almost as a foreign nation spending large sums of money on getting people on side and doing so successfully.

[Childlike Empress]

Georgia has no money to pay these lobbyists/PR companies. It were eighter private donors or US "foreign aid" that sponsored it.

I agreee on the CIA btw, today the journalists are "owned" by the mother cooperations, that's more than "good" enough.

A relevant documentary is "Orwell rolls in his Grave" from 2004. It's Bush aera stuff but witnessing the completely crazy talking heads FOX puts up these days and manages to confuse the viewers so much that "tens of thousands" (*cough*) are protesting imaginary problems in DC, it isn't outdated at all. Interview with the author (http://www.orwellrollsinhisgrave.com/interview.htm).

-4467655342219448521

[zaphod2016]

A relevant documentary is "Orwell rolls in his Grave" from 2004. It's Bush aera stuff but witnessing the completely crazy talking heads FOX puts up these days and manages to confuse the viewers so much that "tens of thousands" (*cough*) are protesting imaginary problems in DC, it isn't outdated at all. Interview with the author (http://www.orwellrollsinhisgrave.com/interview.htm).

-4467655342219448521

Thank you for sharing that; more good stuff.

re: Georgia, I understand how PR shaped the story put out to the world. However, unless reddit put it right under my nose, I'd likely have never seen it. I argue that computerized aggregation sites, like Google News and Digg are among the most powerful of the "new media". YouTube is another good example of what I mean. Most of the stuff on YouTube is either a) crap or b) pulled directly from TV, and all the same spin doctors we love to hate. YouTube's value-add is getting that content in front of my face, despite my ongoing efforts to avoid cable news.

Shaping the story, deciding which stories to cover; these issues have affected media for a long time. The new media, and especially its socially-driven aspects, present new challenges and opportunities. It is easier than ever for the "little guy" to be heard; on the other hand, just because a link is popular, doesn't make it true.

[Childlike Empress]

Thank you for sharing that; more good stuff.


You're very welcome. Allow me to use the opportunity to plug my personal favorite media critic - Michael Parenti. That guy ROCKS!

Lecture "Lies, War and Empire" Part I (2007)
CZTrY3TQpzw

[JoeyDonuts]

I agreee on the CIA btw, today the journalists are "owned" by the mother cooperations, that's more than "good" enough.

That's an "interesting" theory.

Is there anything concrete to suggest that either General Electric, News Corporation, Disney, or Viacom are controlled or influenced by the Central Intelligence Agency?

[Childlike Empress]

I don't think so. What i was trying to say is that it is not necessary these days for intelligence agencies to directly pressure journalists on a large scale, because the self-censoring mechanisms that are in place and the simple threat of losing your job, or don't getting the job in the first place, are powerful enough to maintain orthodoxy in corporate media.

Parenti has a little bonmot that goes something like this (paraphrasing): "I tell journalists who complain about my analysis and say that their bosses never prevented them from saying what they believe, that they are only in the position they're in because their bosses like what they believe".

[dudalb]

Yeah, Parenti, a apologist for Milosvic and somebody who feels that the crimes of Joseph Stalin have been greatly "exaggerated" is a real reliable source.

[Childlike Empress]

Hey dudalb! Long time no see, i felt kind of neglected by you. He explains his stance on those issues and the direction those "critiques" are usually coming from quite well in the video i've posted.

[zaphod2016]

I don't think so. What i was trying to say is that it is not necessary these days for intelligence agencies to directly pressure journalists on a large scale, because the self-censoring mechanisms that are in place and the simple threat of losing your job, or don't getting the job in the first place, are powerful enough to maintain orthodoxy in corporate media.

If I may butt-in, the issue is access.

If I give a hardball interview, the crooks and liars will flee to other shows, with easier questions and more sympathetic hosts. I.e. Bush and Cheney were on FOX News all the time, but avoided the "liberal" media like a plague.

Jon Stewart is one of the few who seem immune from the access issue, and even then, I doubt we'll ever see Bush on his show. I doubt Cramer will be back.

[Childlike Empress]

Jon Stewart is one of the few who seem immune from the access issue, and even then, I doubt we'll ever see Bush on his show. I doubt Cramer will be back.


I'm always suspicious of people who seem to be immune from the acccess issue, but i'm looking forward to the new show of Harald Schmidt, who introduced/copied the US "late night" format for german television and stuck to it for quite some time, delving into the art of celebrity non-talk during the last years - he will be back on thursday and has the opportunity to shake the republic - but i doubt he will really take it on. Otherwise, even he, a fullblown "star" and as sharp as humans get, will get burned after the first show.

[Brainster]

Rather than search for an answer to whether Colby actually made the quote, it might be more useful to accept it and see where it leads you. We'll assume that Colby was talking about the period of time when he was in the CIA, which ends in early 1976. So who were people of any significance in the major media back then?

1. Walter Cronkite, CBS News
2. David Brinkley, NBC News
3. Howard K. Smith and Harry Reasoner, ABC News
4. Arthur Sulzberger, the New York Times
5. Kate Graham, the Washington Post

Is anybody starting to see the problem here? Let's indulge the conspiracy theorists here again; in 1963 the CIA killed Kennedy because he was about to get us out of Vietnam. But in 1968, the CIA, which owned Walter Cronkite, couldn't get him not to report that the Vietnam War was mired in stalemate? They couldn't get Kate Graham in 1972 to assign those two young reporters to cover high school football games?

BTW, not often mentioned is the fact that Colby himself was a liberal politically; he joined the nuclear freeze movement after leaving the CIA.

[Childlike Empress]

Libbroools! Thazzed problem!

edit: that's the guy who delivers 9/11 "information" to you.

[JoeyDonuts]

I don't think so. What i was trying to say is that it is not necessary these days for intelligence agencies to directly pressure journalists on a large scale, because the self-censoring mechanisms that are in place and the simple threat of losing your job, or don't getting the job in the first place, are powerful enough to maintain orthodoxy in corporate media.

I don't see the connection between intelligence agencies and these "self censoring mechanisms" you describe. The simple threat of losing your job? Concerns over getting a position in the first place? That's a concern where I work. (I do work for the media, BTW.) It's also a concern at Home Depot and McDonald's.

Can you give an example of a journalist who was threatened by the CIA with losing their job, or not getting a good job later on?

All of this stuff just reads like a bunch of theory in the complete abscence of evidence. My ears are open if you have anything that can be sourced.

[Childlike Empress]

I second zaphod's recommendation of Chomsky/Herman "Manufacturing Consent" for a start, Joey. We all agreed in this thread that the notion of the CIA singlehandedly controlling the media is, today, a myth. May have been true in the past, i don't know. The documentary "Orwell rolls in his Grave" is also serious business and not "CT stuff", regardless of its title (i watched it years ago, maybe there's some crap in it but guys like Charles Lewis and Robert McChesney are a bank).

[JoeyDonuts]

It's just that I would have attributed something of this type to the Hoover-era Federal Bureau of Investigation. Those skeletons are out in the open, as are many of the CIA's.

[Childlike Empress]

If you doubt that the mainstream media lies ON A GRAND SCALE all the time - systematically, reread the thread on the Georgia/Russia incident last year. More obvious it doesn't get. I think the title of that thread was "Russia invades Georgia" or something like that.

edit: Russia invades Georgia (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120607)

[arthwollipot]

Hmm. The CIA owns people now? I didn't realise they still practiced slavery.

[JoeyDonuts]

I don't think they lie ON A GRAND SCALE all the time. I think they get things wrong an awful lot.

Also, in the case of the U.S. Media, there aren't many news bureaus in that part of the world. There are less and less of them, as even the large media corporations are feeling the global economic crunch. They might dispatch a reporter to a certain area who will get there after hostilities have ensued. The other thing you have to consider is where the news organizations get their information from. They might be relaying what was told to them by a military staff officer or a warlord, each of whom represent an organization that would no doubt want to be perceived a certain way. Then there's the reporter's bias, and the news organization's bias. All news organizations have them, although some work harder than others at being objective.

I don't recall major Western sources devoting many resources to the conflict anyway. That's a trend that's going to continue as they literally cannot afford to maintain field offices in every far corner of the world where things may or may not happen. They'll get there after the opening salvo and the military in the respective conflict may be attempting to control as much of the information flow in and out of the combat zone as possible. This isn't as feasible anymore with an increasingly connected public even in places that would be normally thought of as "backward," but it is still an essential part of warfare.

Unless, of course, you are alleging that the mainstream media (which organization, exactly?) fabricated their coverage for some sort of political end. And I'm sorry but I can't buy that on face value.

[Childlike Empress]

It takes a lot of time observing the media to come to definite conclusions - time we don't have, but i don't see any surrogate for paying attention yourself, be suspicious. No book can teach media awareness to you, but the closest to achieving it is still, after 20 years, "Manufacturing Consent", imho.

[JoeyDonuts]

I'm very suspicious of the media, but it's more they're misunderstanding what they're reporting or just flat out getting things wrong. It's different nowadays. Back in the newspaper days there was a "corrections" section where they'd fix their goofs. Now it's very rare to see this. The only thing compelling TV or Internet news into self-correction is journalistic integrity, which I fear may have died with Walter Cronkite.

My biggest complaint with many news sources is their heavy empahsis on commentary instead of reasoned analysis.

Oh well - "Reasoned analysis" won't ingratiate you as a political force, and that's another big complaint of mine.

All of my beefs with the media stem from their overstepping their journalistic bounds for political reasons of their own design. If they fabricate things, there is enough competition in the marketplace that the other networks would hold their feet to the fire.
I also don't like that certain members of the media have christened themselves the de facto heads of the Republican Party. I think you know who I mean.

I know it's easy to paint all Americans as mindless drones to cable news, fast food, and over-produced crappy music, but come on. You've met enough various USAians on this site you should know that "results may vary."

[Childlike Empress]

This is not an american issue, it's an issue of conformity - the US media is only the most extreme example. We have the same problems here - we have the same capitalist hierarchical structures here. SNAFU.

[JoeyDonuts]

Capitalism = iPods.

Therefore, I support it.

[Childlike Empress]

I reactivated my good old vinyl records player lately. Your stuff is evil! CU ;)

[JoeyDonuts]

Good luck strapping that 45 LP deck to your arm so you can take it running with you.

Plus, the newer iPods have an FM tuner built in. This way, I can ensure that my constant flow of right-wing talk radio and Toby Keith music is never interrupted.

[zaphod2016]

I don't think they lie ON A GRAND SCALE all the time. I think they get things wrong an awful lot.

Can't it be both? I'm sure some people in mass media have clear political agendas, and others are just plain dumb.

Rather than search for an answer to whether Colby actually made the quote, it might be more useful to accept it and see where it leads you.

Ok, let's pretend Colby made this statement; we have video, audio and signed affidavits. Is it true? Just because he said it doesn't make it true. Disinfo, don't ya know. ;)

We've already established the quote is (most likely) a fabrication by McGowan.

I have expanded the question to: "is the CIA manipulating mass media, either domestically or abroad?"

I'll put you down for "nope". I can't blame you, I have no evidence of anything.

But if someone does, I'd like to see it. Hence the purpose of the thread.

Great job debating Dylan Avery by the way. :D

[JoeyDonuts]

Can't it be both? I'm sure some people in mass media have clear political agendas, and others are just plain dumb.

Can otherwise intelligent people also be wrong sometimes?

Could the research efforts into a story be insufficient?

Could they be deceived by a "source" and not verify it before publishing/airing?

The other problem I have with arguments like these is that they assume the "mass media" is a coordinated unitary organization with a singular agenda.

In some cases, a media organization stepping over the line into activism isn't always a bad thing. See the Edward R. Murrow/McCarthy incidents for an example. But that was a different time both in technology and political circumstances...probably not the best example, and shouldn't be read as an endorsement of the Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh tactics of today.

[Subliminal]

The media does Lie 95% of the time, it's what makes them money...

Papers, magazines and the news would be seriously boring without a few twists and lies thrown in.

[JoeyDonuts]

The media does Lie 95% of the time, it's what makes them money...

Papers, magazines and the news would be seriously boring without a few twists and lies thrown in.

The Media lies 95 percent of the time?

So, by that of course, you mean that only five percent of all printed, broadcasted, and transmitted news stories worldwide are factual?

Ohhhh, back this up with anything but speculation, I dare you.

And by the way...Advertising is what makes media outlets money, at least in the United States.

[Moss]

Well, going by this book by Tim Weiner (http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim-Weiner/dp/038551445X) I don't think the CIA was ever able to "own" all relevant people in the media business.
Come to think of it: If the media is still in such a tight grip, why would anyone be able to publish such a book that paints the CIA as uncreative spook thugs for most of the time? While that might look like a good disinfo attempt there's also always the question of funding. And I think the CIA is looking pretty bad the last few years, especially in contrast with the NSA.

[zaphod2016]

Can otherwise intelligent people also be wrong sometimes?

Yes.

Could the research efforts into a story be insufficient?

Absolutely, see below:

Could they be deceived by a "source" and not verify it before publishing/airing?

Happens all the time. I'd consider that insufficient research, personally.

The other problem I have with arguments like these is that they assume the "mass media" is a coordinated unitary organization with a singular agenda.

Somewhere in the middle lies the truth. The "media" is NOT a homogeneous organization. However, there is most certainly collusion, cooperation and generally accepted "best practices" within the industry.

This is nothing nefarious, mind you. Most people in media are notoriously uncreative, and when someone tries something new, and it works, the rest are quick to copy. Case in point: (almost) everyone on cable news has a Twitter account now. Don't ask me why.

In some cases, a media organization stepping over the line into activism isn't always a bad thing. See the Edward R. Murrow/McCarthy incidents for an example. But that was a different time both in technology and political circumstances...probably not the best example, and shouldn't be read as an endorsement of the Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh tactics of today.

Editorial has always had a place in news, will always have a place in news. My problem with cable media is that "primetime" news is nothing but editorial, no matter which host or channel you prefer. Watch one of those Murrow newscasts sometimes: he read calmly, objectively, stating the facts of the case. When editorializing, he was quick to point out that what followed was opinion, not fact.

This line between editorial and "hard news" has become extremely blurred. This is largely a result of the 24/7/365 news cycle. Opinions don't cost anything to research, and everyone has one. Toss 5 idiots in a room together, and you can easily kill an hour of airtime, without informing anyone of anything. This is TV of the lowest order, and does nothing but reinforce pre-existing opinions.

But the corporate structure of the media has already been well documented, and covered by several great books and documentaries. I'd like to focus on the accusations of government involvement.

I think it is fair to say that commercial television exists for the sole purpose of propagandizing its viewers to purchase certain products and services. That is the essence of advertising; the backbone of television for over 50 years now. So, yes, any ad-supported media is a form of propaganda if you want to cut past a semantics debate.

But- is it state-sponsored propaganda? For example, FOX News interviewing President Bush is one thing, reading White House press releases without any fact-checking whatsoever is another matter entirely. The military winning "hearts and minds" is understood; the CIA running specific programs, or pushing specific information, is something else.

Does that make sense?

[zaphod2016]

Well, going by this book by Tim Weiner (http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim-Weiner/dp/038551445X) I don't think the CIA was ever able to "own" all relevant people in the media business.

Thanks Moss!

[geni]

Come to think of it: If the media is still in such a tight grip, why would anyone be able to publish such a book that paints the CIA as uncreative spook thugs for most of the time?

The general population doesn't really read books of that type. If some groups find out what you were up to several years ago it doesn't present a significant problem.

Books in general are less targeted by PR people although lawyers tend to notice them (Khalid bin Mahfouz is dead though so perhaps less so in future).

[geni]

I have expanded the question to: "is the CIA manipulating mass media, either domestically or abroad?"


Outside the US Black Propaganda would fall within the CIA's remit. But it's very nature it's hard to work out what is happening there though.

Other US goverment bodies are involved in media manipulation. The Pentagon rapid response operation for example.

[zaphod2016]

Other US government bodies are involved in media manipulation. The Pentagon rapid response operation for example.

Pentagon boosts 'media war' unit (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6100906.stm)

This is exactly the sort of thing I am looking for. Thanks again.

As a civilian, do I have any way of knowing which specific stories are being pushed, via which channels? Is this all covert?

[JoeyDonuts]

Hold the phone.

There's a big difference between the Pentagon addressing an information warfare deficiency in a combat zone and controlling the media itself.

That directive was designed to speed up the response of the military's media relations people. Relations, not control. When you hear things like Information Warfare, Media "War", and PSYOPS, try to keep it in context. Countering what was considered disinformation, nothing more.

Having worked with PSYOPS in the past, I would be more than willing to explain what they are in context of real-world military operations. And I can assure you it doesn't involve manipulating global media networks.

[geni]

Hold the phone.

There's a big difference between the Pentagon addressing an information warfare deficiency in a combat zone and controlling the media itself.

That directive was designed to speed up the response of the military's media relations people. Relations, not control. When you hear things like Information Warfare, Media "War", and PSYOPS, try to keep it in context. Countering what was considered disinformation, nothing more.


Heh. You know I hear that claim a lot. Mostly from the SOE and people trying to promote their companies on wikipedia. It doesn't have any more credibility in those cases either.



Having worked with PSYOPS in the past, I would be more than willing to explain what they are in context of real-world military operations. And I can assure you it doesn't involve manipulating global media networks.

Yeah. If you want us to accept your explanations it would probably be better to avoid statements that are known to be flat out false.

COINTELPRO would obviously be a bit outside your area but well this isn't:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?_r=1&ref=washington

[zaphod2016]

There's a big difference between the Pentagon addressing an information warfare deficiency in a combat zone and controlling the media itself.

I agree. This is a public relations effort, not a CIA conspiracy; the "winning of hearts and minds". However-

Link provided by geni:

Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?_r=2&ref=washington)

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found

I do not object to the military going on the news and sharing an opinion. They have the same freedom of speech as everyone else.

My objection derives from the deception involved. These people should be introduced as belonging to Pentagon Public Relations, not as an objective analyst. This is a deception. Perhaps not an overt "lie", but I'm not interested in what "the definition of is is".

Since geni brought it up, I have to ask: was COINTELPRO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO) discontinued in 1971, or has it survived into the 21st Century (perhaps under another name)?

[JoeyDonuts]

Since geni brought it up, I have to ask: was COINTELPRO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO) discontinued in 1971, or has it survived into the 21st Century (perhaps under another name)?

Absolutely NOT. COINTELPRO was an FBI directive. This is not to be confused with modern counterintelligence programs, which are an integral part of information dominance operations.

But by all means, if you want to believe this bunkum that the military, in fact, generates media stories, be my guest. ETA: The context by which I mean this is the allegation that the military is somehow manipulating and controlling media organizations. Blatantly false. I don't doubt for a second that the Bush administration briefed in a few of the "military analysts." That's a far cry from what's being insinuated here.

This might be true if and only if you considered Stars and Stripes or Voice of America to be mainstream media.

[JoeyDonuts]

Heh. You know I hear that claim a lot. Mostly from the SOE and people trying to promote their companies on wikipedia. It doesn't have any more credibility in those cases either.

When have I ever tried to sell a damned thing on this website? If you're going to accuse me of pushing an agenda, don't mince words. Out with it. Or are you just running off at the yapper again?

There's a lot of conspiracist connect-the-dots thinking going on here.

Association does not causation make, people.

[zaphod2016]

But by all means, if you want to believe this bunkum that the military, in fact, generates media stories, be my guest. ETA: The context by which I mean this is the allegation that the military is somehow manipulating and controlling media organizations. Blatantly false. I don't doubt for a second that the Bush administration briefed in a few of the "military analysts." That's a far cry from what's being insinuated here.

What exactly is being insinuated here? These "analysts" are being presented in a deceptive manner. Do you dispute this? Is the NYT article cited above false or inaccurate?

I sense a note of hostility in your reply. Would I be correct to assume you are military? Is it possible I'm offending you with these questions? If so, just let me say clearly that I sincerely appreciate the service of our military. My objections with policy have nothing to do with the many fine people serving.

Thanks for you response, re: COINTELPRO.

Can you point me to any civilian-grade info on "information dominance operations"?

[geni]

When have I ever tried to sell a damned thing on this website? If you're going to accuse me of pushing an agenda, don't mince words. Out with it. Or are you just running off at the yapper again?

Your agenda appears to be to defend US PSYOPS. Understandable. However your tactics this time are nothing special. A mix of doubt and uncertainty combined with the always attack doctrain of PR. It's not a bad aproach just one I see rather a lot.

Your other tactics are litle better:

I mean look at this "the Pentagon addressing an information warfare deficiency in a combat zone and controlling the media itself". Now any halfway objective analysis would show that the only difference is a POV.

"Countering what was considered disinformation, nothing more." It's a good excuse. Not consistent with the availible information.

Now to be fair your description is consistent with the US definition of counterpropaganda operations. Perhaps that was where you were working.

Psyops is somewhat wider in scope:

"psychological operations. Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign
audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of
foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations
is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator’s objectives.
Also called PSYOP. (JP 1-02)"

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB177/02_psyop-jp-3-53.pdf page 120

It's also accepted by the US goverment that modern media networks make it effectively imposible to limit the effect to foreign audiences.


There's a lot of conspiracist connect-the-dots thinking going on here.

Association does not causation make, people.

Uh huh:

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jul/03/nation/na-statue3

[JoeyDonuts]

I will tie everything together at the bottom, but let me address each point by the both of you. And before I start, I probably owe the two of you (zaphod and geni) and apology. My comments were peppered with some unnecessary hostility. It wasn't necessary and I regret any offense.

What exactly is being insinuated here? These "analysts" are being presented in a deceptive manner. Do you dispute this? Is the NYT article cited above false or inaccurate?

No, I believe the reporting is accurate. When you see a "military analyst" on a cable show with remarkable knowledge of current troop positions, force disposition, and speaking in specific terms, I'd bet he's been coached by the administration. I also wouldn't put it past Pentagon officials to present such figures to the media. I'd also wager with the changing of the guard (and far less chickenhawks at the wheel) this is a practice that will become less prevalent.

I sense a note of hostility in your reply. Would I be correct to assume you are military? Is it possible I'm offending you with these questions? If so, just let me say clearly that I sincerely appreciate the service of our military. My objections with policy have nothing to do with the many fine people serving.

Yes. I am a U.S. Navy veteran. I was an electronic warfare technician on an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. It was a smaller ship, which meant a lot of multitasking had to be done to carry out the various missions. As such, my collateral duties included intelligence analysis, PSYOPs distribution, inventory, etc., physical security and force-protection, photographic intelligence collection, electronics maintenance, and other things as assigned.

Can you point me to any civilian-grade info on "information dominance operations"?

Information dominance can also be known as Information Warfare. This refers to the effort by a military force to maintain supremacy over the flow of information germane to warfighting efforts. This includes all manner of electronic, acoustic, communications/non-communications derived informations. We're talking about radars, sonar, cell phones, printed information, PSYOPs, instrumentation signals, radio/television, etc. You want to maintain the integrity of everything within your C4ISR, while denying and disrupting the ability of the enemy to utilize theirs. (C4ISR = command, control, computers, communications, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaisance) When combating a low tech enemy, these concepts have to be adjusted to the threat - a process that I believe our services are still feeling out.

Your agenda appears to be to defend US PSYOPS. Understandable. However your tactics this time are nothing special. A mix of doubt and uncertainty combined with the always attack doctrain of PR. It's not a bad aproach just one I see rather a lot.

Can you please clarify the bolded portion? And, by the by, I'm not a public relations person and never have been. I'm way too much of an ass to be an effective one.

I mean look at this "the Pentagon addressing an information warfare deficiency in a combat zone and controlling the media itself". Now any halfway objective analysis would show that the only difference is a POV.

Not the case. Putting on a dog and pony show, however stretched and falsified it may be, is a lot different than "buying off the judges."

"Countering what was considered disinformation, nothing more." It's a good excuse. Not consistent with the availible information.

Can you point me to the reputable available information that states the U.S. military or intelligence establishment controls the mainstream media in any part of the globe?

Psyops is somewhat wider in scope:
Also called PSYOP. (JP 1-02)"

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...op-jp-3-53.pdf page 120

Your reference is correct. That document, or "Joint Publication," is one of many resources which define, plan, and govern the concept of Psychological Operations. Each unit may have their own "playbooks" depending on their chain of command's tasking and structure, but none of these are going to be available to the general public, nor should they be.

Once again, it's important to remember that PSYOPS is part of a larger information dominance strategy, and never the sole purpose of an operation.

It's also accepted by the US goverment that modern media networks make it effectively imposible to limit the effect to foreign audiences.

They learned this lesson the hard way. I think modern media culture caught them with their pants down. You have to remember that many in the Bush adminstration who were doing the bulk of the war planning are products of a different age. (Also, very few had seen actual combat.) As a guy on the pointy end of things, Colin Powell's resignation made me really nervous when it happened.

Uh huh:

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jul...ion/na-statue3

The U.S. Military staged a publicity operation. They pissed on the public's boots and told them it was raining. In wartime, it happens - although the Bush admin seemed to pull this kind of operation a lot more. Another example would be the whole "Mission Accomplished" nonsense. In either case, a dog and pony doesn't mean that the organization in question controls or owns major mainstream media outlets.

In terms of the OP, with regards to the bogus William Colby quote, I haven't seen anyone bringing information forward that would support the idea that the military or intelligence agencies do this sort of thing.

Simply because the Bush-era military and intelligence agencies engaged in deceptive and manipulative media stunts during a "time of war" does not mean that they directed the reporting and coverage activies of major news outlets.

[Nosi]

Here's McGowan's website (http://www.whale.to/b/mcgowan_h.html), where you can learn that rock music of the 1960s (http://www.whale.to/b/inside_the_lc.html) was a CIA plot.



So yeah, I'd say McGowan's about as credible a source as Christopher Bollyn.

Crosby, Stills & Nash.

You are :rule10 kidding me. David Crosby?!? Sorry, but no. I don't care who is daddy is, Crosby couldn't control a cuppa coffee. A joint maybe...