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

[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.

 

[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 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 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

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

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 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 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.