Slashdot Mirror
L.A. Times National Security Reporter Cleared Stories With CIA Before Publishing
New submitter Prune (557140) writes with a link to a story at The Intercept which might influence the way you look at media coverage of the kind of government activity that deserves rigorous press scrutiny. According to the story, "Email exchanges between CIA public affairs officers and Ken Dilanian, now an Associated Press intelligence reporter who previously covered the CIA for the Times, show that Dilanian enjoyed a closely collaborative relationship with the agency, explicitly promising positive news coverage and sometimes sending the press office entire story drafts for review prior to publication. In at least one instance, the CIA’s reaction appears to have led to significant changes in the story that was eventually published in the Times." Another telling excerpt: On Friday April 27, 2012, he emailed the press office a draft story that he and a colleague, David Cloud, were preparing. The subject line was “this is where we are headed,” and he asked if “you guys want to push back on any of this.” It appears the agency did push back. On May 2, 2012, he emailed the CIA a new opening to the story with a subject line that asked, “does this look better?”
The piece ran on May 16, and while it bore similarities to the earlier versions, it had been significantly softened.
A little scary when press cozies up to a law-enforcement branch of government, isn't it?
Big Media == The Ministry of Truth
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
I'd like to know where they are.
Lets also remember, that the media industry are some of the biggest backers of the government, and pay for quite a few seats in congress on their own right. There are few truely independant news sources.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Many will likely go 'cluck, cluck...they are the independent press and shouldn't do that' and, of course, they are right. But the 'independent press' is rapidly disappearing because there is no longer any money to be made in being part of the 'independent press.' Newspapers (such as the LA Times) have a plummeting circulation of mostly older subscribers and a shrinking advertising base. Most of them are losing money hand over fist or, at best, barely breaking even. Television news (network and local) is seeing its viewer base plummeting and consequently, its advertising revenues are declining rapidly, leaving it fortunate to still be on the air. Internet media gets lots of hits but not much revenue. The bottom line is that there are no longer any major 'independent' news organizations that can afford to antagonize powerful organizations, be they government or corporate or whatever. The LA Times reporter was likely grateful for any scraps of information that his CIA friends would give him because he would never have any way of getting that information otherwise. He is probably lucky if the LA Times will pay him car mileage to drive over to meet with a source. You get what you pay for. Follow the money. What do you pay for news?
Tell us something we don't know.
So how is this different, functionally, from state owned media like the soviet union's pravda? I mean, at least with that publication, everyone KNEW what it was, and who wrote its copy. I"m sure a lot of publications are/were doing this, esp the big ones. These days I would not assume anything I'm told is anything but lies by omission doused in extra potent koolaid. News is flavored, now, to the prevalent mindsets created by the propaganda.
It's a sad state of affairs for supposed bastions of liberty and democracy like the USA. How can free nations be governed by the people when the people have no real information on what the government is doing?
No news here. The "story" is rather dated and has nothing new.
Just think a minute about Valerie Plame and the debacle about "Yellow Cake" and the "Story" the Bush WH was so trying to sell to the UN and other places to justify an illegal invasion of a sovereign country Iraq in order to get Bush re-elected.
Ta ta
No surprise in this. This is the New York Times. They've done far worse. Snowden intentionally didn't go to them because their collusion with the government was well known, even publicly. The NYT trades integrity for access, that's what they do.
Not that you shouldn't be outraged. You should be, and you should never buy their paper or visit their site. Propaganda journalism should not be tolerated.
All of the dates I could find were all post Obama dates.
You have to wonder if the media would have "ran a story by the CIA" before there was a president in the oval office they liked. There were e a lot of CIA leaks published under Bush...
This is exactly why you should not elect a candidate the press favors, because collusion is only natural.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I didn't expect my submission to be actually posted, so I didn't bother to write a summary and only sent in a naked link to the story. Thanks to the editor for doing my job. My intention was just to bring attention to this in the expectation that someone else would make a proper submission. And, in a way, it's what happened--this is really timothy's submission.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
I came from China
I ran away from China during the Cultural Revolution. During that time, the so-called "Press" in China are but mouthpiece of the CCP - every piece of "news" from them are of the excellence of Chairman Mao and the Communist Party, and how the people must defeat the ugly filthy enemy of the revolutionaries
I ran away from China because I couldn't stand such thing. I ended up in the United States of America because back then the U. S. of A. was the epitome of liberty, freedom and democracy (at least to a Chinese refugee)
Nowadays America, my adopted country, has turned into something that I ran away from, where the "Press" no longer collaborate with the authority, where the "Media" willingly becomes the mouthpiece of the power that be
Many of my fellow Chinese from China - especially the older generation - know how bad such system can be, and the sufferings of the people under that kind of depressive government
On the other hand, many of my fellow Americans do not understand the situation they are in - for them, as long as they get to kick back with their girlfriend in a cabin on Saturday night, life is good
All I can say is that I am sad, very sad
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
As late as the 1980's there were still true independent press in America
Yes, there were the "fringe", but at the very least, they were around
Nowadays? The so called indie-press are no longer truly independence - they either belong to the extreme-left-wing, or extreme-right-wing, subscribing to either the view of the ultra-liberal, or those of the ultra-conservative
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
... than Obama does for America
No matter how you hate Putin, that fella at least did something for *HIS* country ... unlike that guy in the White House, the one with "no strategy"
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
This is change we can believe in. That was the plan right?
Viva OBAMA!
To be fair, this is not change we can believe in, but rather change we can believe. Except it might not be change. How would we know? And it might even be something that was done in the interests of publishing information about the government, a trade of a milder tone for more information. Again, how would we know?
Given that the linked story is incredibly one-sided against the reporter yet their worst example is the rewording of a story to the same story with the same information, I'm guessing this is nothing more than the age-old observation that if you want people to talk to you you don't go and twist everything they say in the worst possible light.
He did go against his paper's ethics guidelines though, and while on an individual case I wouldn't have a problem with what he did, if government officials got used to talking to people who allowed them to review the story before publication, then they'd be less inclined to other reporters who don't offer them such favors. Therefore he should be punished for the greater good, and for violating his paper's ethics rules. Sometimes meaning well or having good results simply does not justify something.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Back when I arrived in America I had no passport. I was a refugee from a Communist Country, yearning for freedom, liberty and democracy, a place where I can think freely, without being told how to think or what to think
When I reached America, to me, at least, it was paradise - I felt that "freedom" that I never got to enjoy when I was in China
Of course I did not know anything about "Operation Mocking Bird", or anything similar - but even if I did know, at that time, America was still "free-ier" than the China that I ran away from
Today, however, if I were to be truthful to myself, I could no longer say the same thing
Sure, China is still a repressive country, but the America that I loved so much has slowly creeping towards the authoritarian style of government
And the worse part is, many of my fellow Americans are supporting that change --- for they want the government to make the "hate things"(like "hate speech") illegal, and they want the government to take away all the firearms (for safety), and they want to government to take away their liberty so that the government could "protect them"
That is the America of today, very different from the America when I first arrive in, some decades ago
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Lets see... Judith Miller of the NY Times... and don't forget the NY Times also delayed publishing the story of ATT illegal wiretaps until after the 2008 elections. So many more....
The days of Watergate are over. Now media is a manipulative source claiming to be guardians of freedom.
Epic Fail
With the climate nowadays 1st Amendment does not offer any real protection of free speech anymore
You can be accused of "hate speech", you can be prosecuted under whatever trumped up charge they can cook up, and they can silence you with their "national security" privileges - and the unknown number of secretive laws there are (so secret that we may not know the extent of those laws) can be used at any given time to shut anybody and everybody up, by any mean
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Without it, the government could overtly censor anything it didnt' like, so no, it's still better that we have it than not. You expect the government to regulate the media into telling the truth? hahaha
Glad to read your reply, very thought provoking, even when you post it under an AC
Thanks !
Isn't having fun and sharing life with others the pinnacle of being human? I hardly see anything wrong with the example you presented
Technically you are correct, Sir
There is nothing wrong with having fun and sharing a good time with someone you love
But what I am talking about is not that fun-saturday-night-in-a-cabin-with-girlfriend
The gist of my point is on the "life-is-good" part. Too many of my fellow Americans only care about that part and never pay any attention to what the government is doing
The "good life" that my fellow Americans are having is like a frog being slowly boiled - and before long, all of us will be cooked
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
...you haven't been paying attention. (Tried to put that all on the headline, but wouldn't fit.)
Simply put, as many here already know, if you compare foreign news coverage on domestic affairs to our own domestic coverage, the gaps become obvious and huge: The Guardian et al on Snowden vs the play-down or even silence from domestic sources is just one of MANY examples. Art Bell commented on this years ago (15-20 years ago when I heard it) that he was amazed the coverage of America from the BBC was better than any American news outlet, so this isn't new at all.
The entire point of the 1st Amendment's Press Freedom was to prevent this from happening; so much for that.
It all makes me wonder how much longer before the rest of the conspiracy theorists' predictions come true...
The 2nd Amendment is still a somewhat sturdy foundation for a failing 1st, though it's begun to show some hairline cracks that need to be shored up posthaste.
Allowing someone to take full editorial control of your output does not equate to "Research". Try reading the article again, this time slowly.
I suppose there are many takes on this from the whole domain of Orwell work: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH is fitting quite nicely but really appropriate is the explanation of the reason why power is sought for - the reason why a party seeks power is power itself. The interesting is something else - history but also common sense tells us that if state is allowed to exist for long enough its success will turn efficiency into efficiency to subdue its subjects. The resulting oppression is unavoidable but can be made quite comfortable for majority. With technological progress it may be that the well off majority is not majority no more, but the not so well off can still be contained with use of well applied force or tranquilizers.
Also Muricans have high moral standards that allowed them to get rid of slavery and injustice at home and applying of forces of reason for well being of their citizens and justice. They also tend to agree that their versions of democracy, human rights, free market and self determination are the only valid ones. We can see how effective the introduction of democracy was in Iraq and other places.
If we are not willing to pay for our news, they will have to get their paycheck elsewhere The same goes for our music and our movies. Investigative journalism is too expensive. They would love to be able to do that, but readers are swayed by other things rather than credible journalism.
At least the folks in the Soviet bloc knew the media was state controlled and was lying to them.
Here's the problem (and yes, it's endemic to both parties) - you're a fucking hypocrite.
This kind of story essentially acts as a rorshach test - the typical assessment goes something like this:
1) Something BAD() has been done;
2) Check if the BAD() thing was done by the opposing party;
3) If "Yes", conjure up maximum moral outrage;
4) If "No", downplay the size, scope, or severity of the BAD() thing.
If this was FoxNews checking with the CIA, you'd be outraged.
If this was the LA Times checking with the CIA under Bush, you'd be outraged.
Hell, you speak disparagingly of "the most popular news network" as a mouthpiece of the GOP, but gloss over the fact that the rest of the media is just as much a mouthpiece for the Democrat party! And you don't bat an eye at that!
Fuck all of you party partisans and your silly "rah-rah" team rationalizations. The issue here isn't about parties - the issue here is about the press being in cahoots with our large, powerful, ever expanding, ever intrusive, and fucked up government, under *any* party.
As alarming and shocking as this story may be to some people, it's only the latest in a very long story of big-buisness press collaboration with the men that own and run the country. The idea of an "independent" press is something they teach you in social studies classes in high school, like the "checks and balances" BS, and is one of the reasons the "education" system doesn't educate. Newspapers are big businesses and the economic and political interests of the owners are no different than the interests of owners of oil companies or phone companies. You can start whenever you want but one of the best-known examples of this is the NY Times agreement with John Kennedy not to print the Cuba invasion story in 1961 (before the invasion); then slide through the (early) years of the Vietnam war (especially the Tonkin Gulf resolution, the Iraq war of its day). The Cuba coverup continues--when was the last time you saw a story that wasn't entirely negative?. Liberals like to talk about some supposed golden age of investigative journalism, when the press was somehow something different, but it never existed.
Any reporter who has the words "National Security" or "Counterterrorism" in their title and who isn't actively investigating the wrongdoings of the national security apparatus, is in bed with the spooks. There's no way the security apparatchicks will grant someone looking into their interests a solid middle ground - you're either with them or against them. To think otherwise is foolish.
Any news organization that has one of these reporters are simply letting a snake into their newsroom. Dina Temple-Raston with NPR should be fired for her breathless and unquestioning reporting on high-tech gadgetry and "inside analysis" that's generated for her daily by the CIA, military intelligence, and the NSA. Fuck, from David Martin of CBS to Martha Raddatz of ABC to this print-press idiot, these people are worthless as reporters.
That is all.
This is a reporter talking to a source. The source didn't have editorial control. Why shouldn't the subject of a story be able to provide comments for it?
Unbeknown to most members of the public, among the first Executive Orders signed by President Obama upon taking office was the one, declaring Dissent is no longer patriotic .
So, whereas it was glamorous and noble to dissent against RethugliKKKan election-thieves of the past, you better get all your stories pre-approved by the loving and caring government officials as long as a Nobel Peace laureate is in office.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Never a credible news source, so nothing surprising in this. But this reporter clearly has no integrity whatsoever.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Re "Any evidence of when this started?"
Operation_Mockingbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"After 1953, the network was overseen by Allen W. Dulles, director of the CIA. By this time, Operation Mockingbird had a major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies."...
"The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA's views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Modern art was CIA 'weapon'" (22 October 1995)
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
"...The next key step came in 1950, when the International Organisations Division (IOD) was set up"
"... the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years."
I would suggest over decades with older press staff and now the next web 2.0 generations too.
Beyond that is the useful sockpuppet and other personas to push out policy or distract.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Allowing someone to take full editorial control of your output does not equate to "Research". Try reading the article again, this time slowly.
Ok, let me try:
Dilanian has done some strong work and has at times been highly critical of the CIA. For example, in July 2012 he wrote a piece about sexual harassment at the agency that angered the press office. In reply to an email from a spokesperson, Dilanian said that complaints about his story were “especially astonishing given that CIA hides the details of these complaints behind a wall of secrecy.”
Hrm. Sorry, not seeing the "full editorial control" bit.